Science Debate 2008

Yesterday was the day the "Science Debate 2008" was supposed to be held. The lack of interest was marked. I find two ways of looking at this. On one hand, it would be nice to see Presidential candidates focusing on concrete science-related issues which a science debate might help. On the other hand, any politician on the right would be a fool to step into anything run by the "Science Debate 2008" group.

The group labels itself nonpartisan and trots out a few Republicans to make that point. Token Republicans. Window dressing. The ScienceDebate2008 site seems to be under deconstruction now, but my random sampling of the bloggers listed on the site (e.g., Coturnix, Kriswager, Stoller & Bowers, David) shows a strong left lean. The science Professoriate, which is the core of American science, is also heavily weighted to the political left. The agenda will be set by their beliefs. The questioning would have been nonpartisan in the sense that these folks would focus on what their concerns are, not necessarily the talking points of the Democratic National Committee. Unfortunately for the right, there is not that much difference.

The issues chosen, and the emphasis within the issues will reflect these biases. If you were a candidate from the right would you trust the ScienceDebate2008 "nonpartisans", when discussing the inadequacy of US science education, to focus on the results and education experimentation allowed by vouchers, charter schools and home schooling, or would you suspect the emphasis would be on spending more money at public schools?

Another example is embryonic stem cell research which is widely mentioned as an important debate topic. Here a key point will be how much we could help sick and dying patients if only this research were allowed. This is a big winner for the left. When focus is on the research, most opinion polls show Americans want stem cell research. Instead, why not focus on the moral issue causing not just this fight but the larger one on abortion? When does life begin? Science has a lot to add to that conversation.

By rough analogy one could discuss the issue of organ transplantation. Medical science is expanding the range of possible organs and improving the outcomes for those transplants currently done. The biggest hold up is a lack of donors. A (partly) free market for donations would bring many thousand forward, saving many lives and improving the quality of many others. Here, however, the moral hesitancy preventing this is (mostly) from the left and so a Science Debate controlled by the left would not judge this to be a health issue but a moral one. Not, coincidently, there is little mention of organ transplantation as a ScienceDebate2008 issue.

Given the political bend of the scientists and journalists likely to control a Science Debate, a candidate from the right side of the political spectrum ought to be very wary indeed before straying into that den.