May 13, 2012
The Case For A Presidential Science Debate
Transcript from NPR:
IRA FLATOW, HOST:
This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. Every member of the House of Representatives and a few from the Senate, about a third of the Senate, I believe, is up for re-election this year. There will be hundreds of debates, local and national. Candidates will be asked questions about unemployment, the deficit, gay marriage, budget cutting. But will any of them be asked about their opinions or their knowledge of science and technology?
We have politicians who claim global warming is a hoax, others who don't believe in evolution. Shouldn't we want to know what the candidates know about the basic things in science? Will any moderators of the inevitable presidential debates even ask one question about science?
These are some of the reasons that a grassroots coalition of scientists, engineers and science advocates is calling for a televised presidential science debate. Their goal: for candidates to give us more than canned responses and for voters to make an informed decision in November, informed meaning knowing something about the candidates' views about science.
Joining me now to delve into some of these questions: Shawn Otto is the CEO and co-Founder of ScienceDebate.org, the group trying to organize a presidential science debate. He's also author of "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America." He joins us from Minnesota Public Radio in St. Paul. Welcome back to the program, Shawn.
SHAWN OTTO: Thanks, Ira.
FLATOW: Dr. John Allen Paulos is a professor of mathematics at Temple University and author of several books, including "Innumeracy" and "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper." He joins us from Philadelphia. Welcome back to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Dr. Paulos.
DR. JOHN ALLEN PAULOS: Thanks much.
FLATOW: And former Congressman Vern Ehlers is a Republican, former Republican congressman from Michigan. He's also a physicist. He joins us from Grand Rapids. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 07:07 AM | Permalink
Comments
Definitely science should be an issue, because the fate of civilization depends on those in the seats of power getting it.
I mean, those other than the Navy, which does get it.
Many members of the House, but fewer in the Senate, believe that global warming is the greatest hoax ever fostered on the world.
This pits them against the Navy and scientists.
The public should know this.
Posted by: Dredd | May 13, 2012 9:40:45 AM
It's a great idea, but very unlikely to happen as both candidates' handlers will see it as a lose-lose, either by making them look stupid or by making them look like an elite egghead.
Posted by: FrankZ | May 13, 2012 10:40:21 AM
Nonsense. A debate on science would obviously favor Obama. That's unfair and we won't stand for it.
Posted by: David | May 13, 2012 12:04:19 PM
Some of the remarks attributed to Ehlers are mine and vice versa. The "macho remark" is one example. John Allen Paulos.
Posted by: J.A. Paulos | May 13, 2012 12:25:51 PM
Why should there be a debate on Science and not on Philosophy?
Posted by: Raza | May 13, 2012 3:16:16 PM
Raza, good question but aren't most of the debates already about philosophy, or as much as can be expected of political candidates? The idea is science is especially missing.
Posted by: Nate | May 13, 2012 5:42:17 PM
Post a comment