Science Debate 2008

bhmit1 writes "BusinessWeek is reporting about Science Debate 2008, an attempt to put the scientific issues front and center in the US Presidential race. After 12,000 scientists signed on in support of the idea of a debate focused on science, no campaign has replied to an invitation to such a debate. The article notes that only one candidate has said much about science issues in the campaign, and that some who are running are sufficiently anti-science as to deny evolution. There is a link to a comparison of the candidates' positions on issues informed by science. (Yes, Ron Paul is included.)"

How ironic

After 12,0000 scientists

Science first, English (punctuation) second, eh?

Re:

I think that when it is written that way it is pronounced "twelve ten thousand" instead of the old-fashioned and admittedly crude "one hundred twenty thousand." I wonder why a spell checker couldn't be made to look for a misplaced comma in a number?

Re:

I wonder why a spell checker couldn't be made to look for a misplaced comma in a number?

I wonder why a so-called "editor" can't be bothered to read through a summary before hitting the "approve" button.

Re:

I read through the summary and totally missed it. Some people are better proofreaders than others. I care more about the 'editors' ability to pick decent stories than their ability to proofread nitpicky details like that.

You'll find that those two (the ability to choose good stories, and the ability to pay attention to detail) are strongly correlated, since they both come from a more general desire to "get it right."

I realize it's popular to bash such a criticism on the basis that it's too "nitpicky" s

That's why you need to RTFA

It might be that there's an extra 0, not a misplaced comma

The article mentions several times the number 12,000, that is "twelve thousand", the submission has an extra zero, not a misplaced comma.

"man" is the Japanese word for myriad

I think that when it is written that way it is pronounced "twelve ten thousand"

More like twelve myriad [wikipedia.org], am I right?

Re:How ironic

In some countries the comma is to separate decimals, so that should be read here as 12.0000. Wonder if this were 12.00001 whos 0.00001 of a scientist? The one that denied evolution, maybe?

Re:

Isn't it great what modern science can do with dust?

Maybe we should stop the petty i'm better then you are because I do or don't believe in a god stuff before it stops the debate on science. I know it will be difficult because the article grabbed stuff from their ass and mentioned that creationist are anti science which isn't an accurate or logical conclusion.

But seriously, lets move on to more important things then who's subhuman makeup is better.

"The Republican War on Science"?

linked up with Chapman and two other proponents, journalist Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science

Something makes me think, this will not be an entirely objective undertaking...

Re:

When a political party takes consistently anti-science attitudes, there is no lack of objectivity in pointing that out.

Re:"The Republican War on Science"?

When a political party takes consistently anti-science attitudes, there is no lack of objectivity in pointing that out.

Disagreeing with a scientist is not "anti-science" in itself. One may claim, that Republicans disagree with disproportionally many scientists, and that that is the evidence of contempt for science itself. However, that argument falls apart, when one realizes, that the vast majority of scientists work for the government and need government subsidies to do their work (and support their lifestyles). This provides them with a strong bias (for the scrupulous) and an even stronger incentive (for the less scrupulous) to support the political party, which stands for more intensive "wealth redistribution" (Democrats) and, consequently, to attack its opponents (Republicans).

The debate on climate, for example, still rages on, so I'll give you an example from an earlier era.

For decades the fans of Socialism/Communism among historians were dismissing "rumors" of Soviet atrocities as unsubstantiated attacks on the country of "workers and peasants". This was, in fact, the dominant opinion among professional historians (most of them were also government-paid)... Assistance by (Soviet-duped and/or Soviet-sponsored) journalists [wikipedia.org] did not help either. Boy, did this "intellectuals" have a stinking rotten egg on their collective mugs, when the Soviet archives were (briefly) opened up to researchers in the early 1990ies, and the extents of Soviet crimes turned out to exceed, what even the most vicious "right wing" accusers have suspected!

Were those "right-wingers" anti-science? I don't think so... Were they called that on occasion by exasperated professional historians, pinko-journalists, and actual communists [wikipedia.org]? Of course!

So, please, excuse me, if I'm skeptical of a scientist's opinion, when I'm implored to just believe him/her... They have "cried wolf" in the past.

Re:"The Republican War on Science"?

While I, personally think that there is ample evidence that human caused global warming is a real threat, I also recognize that you are completely correct in questioning the motivations of scientists as a whole in the manner you describe.

I've been reading Scientific American for a long time. There is a certain smug underlying attitude expressed there that scientists really know best for everybody. And they're wrong. Being a scientist does not better equip you to be able to make better ethical or moral decisions. It doesn't tell you where people want to go. It can tell you how people are and why they make decisions and a whole host of other interesting things. It can even tell you that people have an ingrained sense of morality that transcends all cultures and languages. But it can't tell you what is moral or what isn't.

Describing me as an atheist would be fairly close to accurate. I believe that the scientific method is the most useful tool we have for accurately discerning various facts about the world. Science as a whole is extremely valuable and useful. But its domain isn't politics and it never should be.

There was a time in the late 90s and early 00s when Scientific American was much more aggressively political than it is now. One issue in particular that I remember was all about how incredibly evil land mines are, complete with detailed pictures of the results. And it blamed and shamed the US for the problem, completely ignoring the despots, tyrants and military actions that put the land mines there in the first place. I nearly canceled my subscription over that. Luckily they changed and are only a little political here and there now.

And I recognize this danger in the global warming debate. But in the long run, we must develop ways of using resources that are sustainable. We must pay attention to ecological cycles and make sure that what we do works with them, or add cycles of our own. Ultimately our economy must be completely based on a net input of energy and a conscious knowledge of how to recycle every single waste product we produce.

So, in the larger context, I don't really care if the global warming is caused by humans or not. We need to get a handle on the carbon cycle, a thing we've been almost completely ignoring until now. If worrying about a possibly (though I don't think likely) fictitious danger to our continued comfortable existence here is what it takes, then so be it.

There is ample evidence we've been ignoring this cycle. Just look at the rising trend in atmospheric CO2 levels. There is no natural explanation for it. The activity of humans is the cause of this. Whether or not this will result in a climate catastrophe is open to debate (though I know which side of that I'm on) but the fact we've been ignoring this and not making sure there is a cycle is clear and something should be done about it. Sustainable development is in our long term best interests.

Re:Social or physical sciences?

You have a valid point on science being a consensus thing, but one should be careful to differentiate between historians and physicists.

Yes, but Republicans aren't generally accused of being anti-Physics. When the "anti-science" accusation is made, it's generally referring to the "softer" sciences, like biology or, these days, climatology.

It's also due to the stereotype of Republicans being religious zealots who refuse to believe in evolution. And while these types of people are doubtless more common amongst republicans than amongst democrats, it's hardly a fair accusation against the party as a whole.

Re:Social or physical sciences?

Evolution as origins of life = ZERO lab reproducible results of abiogenesis, however it too is 'scientific fact'.

First: Abiogenesis != Evolution. No evolutionary biologist has ever made that claim or ever will.

Second: Lab reproducible abiogenesis? No. Lab reproducible evolution? Yes.

Third:

At some time t0 no life existed on earth.
At some time t2 life existed on earth.
Therefore, at some time t1 between t0 and t2, life came into existence (-genesis) on earth where there was no (a-) life (-bio-) prior.
Saying abiogenesis hasn't happened is exactly the same as saying that biological life has always existed, which is patently absurd.

Re:

The political debate and the scientific debate are entirely separate beasts. While the measured facts may be awfully tough for you to interpret, scientists have put quite a lot of work into successfully interpreting them -- the results of which, I would bet, you refuse to accept.

Re:

I made no claims about the book and did not intend to. By its title and choice of topics, it's clearly not about science. (And, as I mentioned in another comment here, there are no facts about value judgments, such as ethics. As you correctly guessed, there are no facts about bio-ethics. There is science about biology, and that is the extent of it.)

"I doubt their interpretation, because I doubt their integrity. This particular aspect of science has immediate and vast political implications, which creates bi

Re:

"but there is nothing "anti-science" in not believing them"

There is everything unscientific about simply not believing them because you don't want to. Nor does it suffice to have no understanding of how climatology works, apply the claim "it's complicated", and then leap to whatever conclusion you happen to like.

"Which is exactly, what established and professional historians were saying about the history of Soviet Union"

This still has nothing to do with science. I'm glad you've figured out that simply liste

Re:

You appear to believe that things have a single cause. This is either never or rarely true.

I do not know of a single sane and honest scientist that believes that humanity did not *contribute* to the current global warming. Any argument is WRT the degree of contribution. As measurements and models have gotten more sensitive, the degree of contribution has been appearing more significant as a major factor.

I'll admit that there are still uncertainties, but the major ones are WRT "How rapidly will the sea le

Re:"The Republican War on Science"?

History can use science to add to the body of historical knowledge; archaeology is a good example. History itself is not a science and neither is bio-ethics. Bio-ethics is a branch of ethics (philosophy) that applies to actions of people as they deal with biological studies and practices.

You are right to analogize the current science reporting with 50's reporting on communist regimes, but history isn't science. Most events examined by historians are given numerous incompatible explanations, and evidence is reported in a very selective fashion. Although there are many controversies in science, most hypotheses are fairly well resolved in a few decades. No phlogiston here!

Re:

Saying the [insert party name here] Party is carrying out a "War on Science" is not being objective. It's being sensationalist in an attempt to sell books. An "anti-science" attitude is most often translated as "didn't vote the way I wanted them to". Objectivity would demand the author point that out, as opposed to sensationalism. Both Republicans and Democrats spend assloads of money on science, just on the projects they each prefer.

And much of the spending choices are independent of party. For example, fu

Obama and patents

At least one sane guy there, reading about Obama:

Reforming the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Seems like that one is the geek choice.

Re:Obama and patents

Except, like almost everything he says, it's empty and has nothing behind it. What does "reform" mean? I get it, he wants change, but what does that entail, what does he want? Saying you want to "change something" without saying how is pointless.

Clinton wants

Speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle

That sounds pretty geeky!

Too bad Kucinich is out, he supported

Kucinich has proposed several technical initiatives in the areas of renewable energy, pollution control, and open source software and media.

Maybe he's got a /. account?

Actually, both Richardson (D) and Thompson (R) seem to be the geekiest, they both want to spur kids to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math! Richardson even had numbers to back his proposal up!

Re:Obama and patents

Obama has been very clear about support for major increases in science and technology:
    http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/14/barack-obamas-google-friendly-technology-platform/ [techcrunch.com]
But the media hardly mentions it; focusing instead on Hillary's tear.

Re:

But the media hardly mentions it; focusing instead on Hillary's tear.

Don't worry, the press is fair and balanced - if she or Obama farts, they'll talk about that, too.

Common Man

I've been part of their mailing list for a while, and now that some major groups have joined the effort, it's good to see it finally getting some press. Hopefully this will explode, it's just too bad it didn't come to head early enough for most of the primaries.

Whether anyone wants to admit or realize it, scientific issues are exceptionally at the heart of most of the current debates. The article points out some cases, such as the "evidence" for Iraq, that would never have passed a scientific board of inquisitors. Stem cells and evolution are the obvious, but science plays a major role in the abortion and gay rights debate (assuming people think instead of react). Threats of terrorist attacks and various influenza worries are right alongside global warming and environmental concerns as being hugely public issues that basically come down to scientific discussion and knowledge. That some people have the gall to dispute all of evolution or climate change is a sign of a serious and, IMO, disgusting ignorance on the part of the American population. Scientific innovation is also at the heart almost everything we care about: social issues, healthcare, military innovation, prevention of disease, education - it's about time we got our public interested.

Then again, as the SD08 guys point out, we need the leaders to acknowledge this as well. I need only point to xkcd [xkcd.com] to make the point.

Re:

I hate to say this, but what does science have to do with the abortion debate?

Is there any way that you can scientifically say that "Bill is a human; Mary is not, and her death is of no consequence"? I know the Nazis tried, but I didn't think their science stood the test of repeatability. Though heaven knows that there are enough crazed people to have tried.

Which does draw me to another point... that Naziism tried to justify extermination of humans based upon pseudo scientific and pseudo economic values,

A mystery revealed

The summary mentions that only one candidate has spoken about science issues during the campaign, without mentioning who it is. I'm sure you'll be as surprised as I was:

"It's hard to get 12,000 scientists to agree on anything," says Alan Leschner, chief of AAAS and former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "But science is the biggest issue facing modern society, and we are concerned that only one candidate--Hillary Clinton--has so far devoted any energy to science."

Tragically...

Over the years our use of the term "evolution" became so vague that I'm not even sure what it means to say that someone "denies evolution" **sniff*sigh**

Re:

Insightfull? Evolution is a well refined scientific theory, and it is articulated well enough in the literature to be critically tested.

The word evolution -when referring to the Theory of Evolution- is extremely specific. While deniers try to muddy the water, in scientific circles, it's definition is anything but vague.

If you question theory, good for you, but you better have data. If you deny evolution, you probably don't care about data, or about the scientific process at all.

Re:

"If you question theory, good for you, but you better have data. If you deny evolution, you probably don't care about data, or about the scientific process at all."

That is a very interesting set of statements. On one hand, you seem to be glad someone is doing some "free thinking" in the area of origins, but on the other hand you seem to be unwililng to really listen to data. Basically, from your statement, I would surmise that if I actually said "I deny evolution," you would immediately do several menta

Re:

The only people "debating" evolution as a whole are religious zealots like you. Meanwhile, scientists work at refining the details, which involves actual debate. They do NOT refer to "macro" and "micro" evolution; those terms were invented by anti-science religious types, and have zero scientific credibility or applicability.

So yeah, biological evolution is extremely specific, and you are clearly not qualified to argue otherwise.

Science Position

The only proper position for a presidential candidate to make on science is, "It's none of the government's business!" Once you make science the province of government, it becomes subjective and political. In centuries past we had royal courts funding alchemists who always said what the king wanted to hear. Today we have government departments funding researchers who always say what the politicians want. What's the difference?

Re:

If you're hoping a candidate is going to dismantle all government funded research then either you are dreaming or else I missed the sarcasm tag. What candidates might be able to say is they will adopt a more "hands off" approach to government funding decisions to avoid politics from affecting research funding decisions.

Re:

As long as government funds science, then science will be political. No sarcasm intended, just the reality. This is not to deny that corporate or private funding of science would not be similary biased. It's like journalism, true 100% objectivity is not an option. As long as we insist that government pay the salaries of scientists, we need to recognize that science will be political.

Re:

The government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens. Much of this protection is provided by the military. To have effective military, advanced weapons are important. Although weapons are mostly built and designed by non-governmental organizations, there is value to some government-funded research and some government-performed research. Secrecy is one reason that some of this science should be done by the government, Dr. Teller's arguments not withstanding.

Pro-science can be bad too

Everyone talks about creationists trying to have the government force their views on society (e.g. teaching creationism in schools). I agree with that.

However, overly pro-science people can be just as bad. I'm just going to Godwin this right now: the Nazis killed a lot of people who had genetic imperfections (low IQ, susceptibility to some diseases) in order to improve the gene pool. If you go by a strictly scientific viewpoint, such actions are defensible. Eugenics programs are immoral, but they do improve the gene pool. It's safe to say the Holocaust would never have happened if Darwin and Mendel hadn't been born. This is why I don't want an overly pro-science candidate in office. Someone who believes the government should strictly adhere to scientific principles will ultimately attempt another Holocaust.

And then you have the fact that genetic determinism is an excuse for racism. Most modern racists are strong supporters of science, genetics, and evolution, as they claim it validates their immoral beliefs.

I don't want an anti-science creationist. I don't want a pro-science eugenicist. I want separation of science and state.

Re:Pro-science can be bad too

If you go by a strictly scientific viewpoint, such [eugenics programs] are defensible.

Actually, those who use this argument show an extremely poor understanding of biological science. In general, genetic diversity is a good thing. By taking our ideas about what are "good" traits within our current environment and breeding selectively for those, we open ourselves to biological disaster when the environment changes. Not to mention that these traits are usually chosen for aesthetic, and not particularly biologically utilitarian, purposes. That religious moralists always trot out this chestnut as an argument that "we need religion" shows both their biological ignorance and their desire to "Godwin" the debate.

Re:Pro-science can be bad too

It's safe to say the Holocaust would never have happened if Darwin and Mendel hadn't been born.

The idea of racial purity predates Darwin and Mendel by millennia, my friend. This comment of yours is asinine. What made the Holocaust possible was technology. I can well imagine if the Spaniards had had Zyklon-B in the 15th century, they would have got rid of the Jews that way, rather than forced conversion and exile.

It is, in fact, evolutionary biology and genetics which has made a lie of every single racist claim made in the last two or three centuries. The "races" that the Europeans saw are not even logical ways of dividing human populations, they're just simply artifacts of a mariner cultures skipping thousands of miles of intermediate populations.

Re:

Correct. For example, in pre-Darwinian days, it was believed that God had created blacks separately than whites (or that blacks were the result of Lot's curse, or some curse), therefore blacks were inferior. Post-Darwin, however, blacks were closer to monkeys and whites were more evolved, therefore blacks were inferior.

It's funny how completely different justifications can so swiftly act as substitutes, but do you blame the emotion behind it or the ideas that have been twisted into a justification? I'

Re:

It is, in fact, evolutionary biology and genetics which has made a lie of every single racist claim made in the last two or three centuries. The "races" that the Europeans saw are not even logical ways of dividing human populations, they're just simply artifacts of a mariner cultures skipping thousands of miles of intermediate populations.

Talk about letting political dogma get in the way of science. You just replaced the word "race" with the term "population". Let's see what evolutionary biology and genetics have said: that populations evolve to adapt to the specific conditions they find themselves in, that different populations in different geographic areas have different genotypes and phenotypes giving them an advantage in their native area, and that there is a strong correlation between geography and genetics. Almost no serious scientis

Scientific method?

Wouldn't it be nice just to hear the candidate's position on the scientific method [wikipedia.org]? I'd bet several of the candidates would be against the scientific method, and most everything else on those position statements is dependent on their belief in using observable and measurable data to form a hypothesis.

What do you mean by "Science"?

A popular conception of what it means to be scientifically informed is to swallow the party line given to you by popular sources of so-called scientific knowledge. There is precious little involvement from the actual scientific method, no better than just accepting on faith everything the pope says. The fact is, many people feel mistreated and mislead by this nebulous thing we call "science" and made to feel stupid when they question the status quo. That's ironic because science should be all about questioning the status quo. But when I was a child, questioning evolution and asking for more support for it (I was a kid in high school; I had no clear definition of it) was not met with the knowledge I asked for but derision for so stupidly questioning the God-given truth handed down by our priestly scientists.

Skepticism should be the default position of everyone who studies science, even skepticism of those things that are very strongly established. Yes, it is often the case that someone who is questioning a position may question it less if they have more knowledge in the area. But no one can be an expert in all areas of science, and it should ALWAYS be okay to question what we're told. (ObSlashdot: If we here weren't the questioning sort, we'd all be using Windows instead of Linux.)

So I put it to you that, by taking a skeptical position, some of these anti-science people are in fact more faithful to the underpinnings of science than those people who arrogantly call themselves scientists.

To the masses, "science" (much like "politics" or "medicine") is defined purely in terms of the output of those people who practice it, and not by the principles those practitioners are supposed to follow. Scientists are often full of shit. Plus, most of the science that people are exposed to is the stuff they didn't pay attention to in high school and the stuff they watch on Discovery Channel, both of which are utter crap. So what do you expect people to think?

Oh, and one other thing. Don't think anything's going to be fixed by improving science education. Yes, the education is crap, but science can be unintuitive even when taught well. The solution is to fix the scientists and their massive egos.

Stem cell research

I know this is going to be contentious but, possibly for the only time in my life, I have to say that I think Bush made the right decision banning Federal funding for stem cell research using foetal tissue. Abortion is a woman's right to choose as far as I'm concerned but the use of the discarded tissues is ethically questionable - I'd prefer the tissues were treated as remains rather than resources. Coercing scientists into discovering ways to convert a person's own tissue back into stem cells for treatment seems to be a more useful avenue of research in the long run than implanting foreign tissue.

Of course, if there are compelling arguments to be made for the use of foetal tissue, I wouldn't mind hearing them. But I'll be very skeptical about "it'd make stem cell research way easier". Sometimes human dignity has to outweigh purely scientific advancement or we're making only a very narrow form of progress.

Compelling reason for fetal stem cell research

Fighting disease in adult humans is only one possible application of what can be learned by studying stem cells. And you're right that the possibility of creating stem cells from adult cells would be a big step in this direction.

But stem cell research was originally (and some still is) just one aspect of wide-ranging pure research into human genetics and biology. The main reason to study fetal stem cells is that it is the only way to understand the biology of how humans reproduce, and how genetic informatio

Re:Science privatization

You have a very narrow view of research. Almost all research that is done on government funding is invisible to you, the layman. They are fundamental topics that will see applications only YEARS down the road from now. The trick with private research funding is that they ensure only short-term success, since being investment-based that's all they can be.

Not to mention that private funding will always focus on the topics that will lead to business-applicable technologies soonest, as opposed to general research that will open up entirely new segments of science altogether, which is a long term benefit.

Government research support is absolutely critical. My brother is a researcher in the field of evolutionary genetics, something that few private companies will think about funding. But the knowledge is important, and in time has led to real advancements in our knowledge and our technology.

So please, keep up government scientific funding, it's the only competitive advantage the USA has ever had, and the only hope it has of maintaining its supremacy as a superpower.

Re:

Yep. Basic research will almost NEVER be done by private industry, simply due to the fact that any benefits that come about due to it tend to be long-term, if there are any benefits at all. The purpose is purely to expand knowledge without knowing if and how that knowledge can be used. Private industry has no desire to do research simply to expand our understanding of the world--they only want knowledge that can be monetized quickly. It seems that most people that argue that government shouldn't fund resear

Re:

And where is AT&T Labs now? Xerox PARC? Businesses believed it before, but it would seem they no longer do. Also, think outside of the world of computer technology - our research is a bargain compared to fields like genetics and biology.

Not to mention even when we invented the transistor, we already could see applications for it - after all, it's immediately obvious that we can replace vacuum tubes and make a better computer. Computer research ALWAYS has a short-term application, it's easy to justify

Re:

Look, you have governments in Europe, Japan and China pouring significant amounts of money into basic research. As it is there is a great deal of concern about the US beginning to fall behind. For now that shortfall is being made up by importing researchers, but to basically cut off a major part of competitive scientific research to fulfill some ill-informed Libertarian ideal and allow competing countries to finally pass the US by will truly represent the decline of the US as a major power.

This is why I t

Re:Science privatization

The USSR did a helluva lot of research. Some of the best physicists were produced by the Soviets, even if the ultimate justification was building bigger bombs.

I don't think anyone says that all research should be publicly funded, but to dismiss the overarching importance of basic research, or to pretend that the private sector would ever pick up the ball in areas such as biology, physics, archaeology, anthropology and so forth is absolutely naive.

Re:Science privatization

A large chunk of the computer revolution can be attributed to NASA's need to miniaturize onboard systems for Apollo. Materials like Teflon come out of the space industry. NASA has been responsible, directly or indirectly for an enormous number of technical innovations. So while the space program is costly, there is a tangible payback to the taxpayer.