The Skeptics Society has retired Skepticblog (while preserving all posts online at their original urls for future reference), but we’re proud to announce our bigger, better new blog: INSIGHT at Skeptic.com! Dedicated to the spirit of curiosity and grounded in scientific skepticism’s useful, investigative tradition of public service, INSIGHT continues and exp […]
Some people say, "Oh, there's anti-science on both sides of the political aisle." But that neglects one important fact: in only ONE political party are the leadership and the party platform dominated by science denial.
Would you believe there is a patch of trapped garbage floating in the North Pacific bigger than the state of Texas? It's called the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch".
Last summer I posted about how Science Debate is gearing up for the 2016 elections in the United States, in order to encourage the presidential and Congressional candidates to publicly debate science policy and science-related issues.
Now that the heat of the 2016 U.S. campaign season is upon us, with the first public debates between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump (and possibly Libertarian Gary Johnson) a bit over a month away, it is imperative that we speak out to get the debate hosts and these campaigns to make science a part of these debates. In fact, it isn’t just science geeks like me calling for such a debate, as – according to this 2015 poll – vast majorities of Americans (of all political stripes) wish for such a debate…
“An overwhelming majority of Americans (87%) say it is important that candidates for President and Congress have a basic understanding of the science informing public policy issues, including majorities across the political spectrum (92% of Democrats, 90% of Republicans and 79% of Independents). Americans also say the presidential candidates should participate in a debate to discuss key science-based challenges facing the United States, such as healthcare, climate change, energy, education, innovation and the economy, with 91% of Democrats, 88% of Republicans and 78% of Independents agreeing.”
So please pass the word, sign the Science Debate petition, or donate to the cause. One of the best ways to spread the word is to push for a ground-swell of support on social media and by contacting the campaigns directly. Toward that end, here is some advice from Shawn Otto, the founder of Science Debate…
Please alert your networks. Here is sample tweet language:
Separately, here’s a tweet from MediaMatters emphasizing our urging of the press to do a better job of covering science, engineering, tech, health & environmental issues this cycle: https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/763379155777880064
When using social media use the #ScienceQs hashtag (hint: search here for other tweets). You may also reference the twitter handles of ScienceDebate and the candidates: @HillaryClinton @realDonaldTrump @GovGaryJohnson @DrJillStein @SciDebate @ShawnOtto @Sheril_ @aaas @theNASEM
A sampling of some of the initial domestic coverage on the questions (which should also be shared on social media – the more this is out there, the more pressure candidates will feel to respond promptly):
[**Update (8-16-15): The recent manufactured controversy over the funding of Planned Parenthood is an excellent example of how anti-science has crept into U.S. politics. For more details on that, see this more recent post 🙂 ]
You may recall that in the 2008 and 2012 national election cycles, a new and extremely important effort to inject some serious discussion of scientific topics was introduced: Science Debate. The whole point of Science Debate is to get the presidential candidates (as well as other politicians) talking about science and science-related topics, so that the public can make informed decisions. And with the 2016 elections coming up next year, it’s time to get the word out about Science Debate and its place in the political discourse of the country. So please, read more about Science Debate below, sign their petition, submit questions you’d like addressed, spread the word, and donate to support this worthy cause!
About Science Debate:
Science Debate is a 501(c)(3) organization cofounded and run by volunteer citizens from a variety of walks of life who share the common vision of Thomas Jefferson that “Whenever the people are well-informed, the can be trusted with their own government.” In an age when science influences every aspect of life and lies at the heart of many of our thorniest policy challenges, we believe that candidates for office should be debating and discussing these issues, just like they debate and discuss economics, foreign policy, and even faith. Science Debate is dedicated to elevating science and engineering questions in our national civic dialogue.
As many of you know, I have been touting the Science Debate effort for many months now, because issues of science, technology, and science education are too important to be sidelined in our political discourse (especially in an election year!) This year, the fine folks at Science Debate have not only been holding the presidential candidates’ feet to the fire, but they have also been putting Congressional candidates on the spot. And now some Congressional candidates have answered the challenge 🙂
Congressional Answers to the Top American Science Questions
ScienceDebate.org and Scientific American asked 33 leaders of science-oriented congressional committees to respond.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Washington — October 16, 2012. Americans have all heard about the scandalously anti-science comments made by certain members of the House committee on Science, Space and Technology. ScienceDebate.org and our media partner, Scientific American, the nation’s oldest continuously published magazine, wanted to see what other members of congress in key leadership positions relative to the nation’s science policy had to say about science.
We prepared a subset of eight of the fourteen Top American Science Questions which President Obama and Governor Romney have answered, ranging from climate change to science in public policy, and asked thirty-three members of congress in leadership positions on the nation’s science-oriented congressional committees to respond.
Six of them declined outright, including Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, who were asked to participate because of their overall responsibility for the flow of legislation through congress. Several more ignored numerous requests from ScienceDebate and Scientific American. Nine of the thirty-three responded.
“Americans should be concerned that only nine of the thirty-three key leaders on science-related congressional committees feel the need to let the public know their views on science,” said Shawn Otto, CEO of ScienceDebate.org. “As to the nine who did respond—members of both parties—their leadership should be applauded.”
Senators who responded
Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, Chair, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Tom Harkin, D-IA, Chair, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Jay Rockefeller, D-W, Chair, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Representatives who responded
Timothy Bishop, D-NY-1, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Ralph Hall, R-TX-4, Chair, Committee on Science, Space and Technology
John Mica, R-FL-7, Chair, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
I recently recieved the following encouraging update from Science Debate 2012. Please take a few minutes to read it and consider donating some money towards this worthy attempt to push issues of science, technology, and science education more into the forefront of the political discussion!
The coverage of the the ScienceDebate responses continues to expand, and we are moving the conversation into other races.
In addition to coverage in hundreds of media outlets, specific organizations like Scientific American and The National Academies Press have used the questions as a basis for a series of further explorations. This is helping to slowly steer the juggernaut of US political news coverage toward focusing more on key science issues, and encouraging candidates to engage.
Additionally, project media partner Scientific American has assembled a team of science policy and editorial advisers to grade the Obama and Romney answers. Those grades will be announced on October 16.
We are also expanding the effort in other ways. ScienceDebate and Scientific American invited about three dozen members of congress who lead key science-related committees to respond to a congressional subset of the questions, and will be publishing their responses on October 16.
ScienceDebate has also been working with the Northwest Science Writers Association to refine a subset of six of the questions that are most appropriate to a Washington State gubernatorial debate, and today invited the candidates to respond.
By continuing to work to expand the conversation, we hope to remind candidates and citizens alike of how critical science and engineering topics are to our success as a nation.
Please give today to support these efforts. It’s tax deductable, and we can’t go on without your support. And thanks.
I am happy to announce that both presidential candidates – President Barack Obama and his rival Mitt Romney – have answered the top questions posed by Science Debate 2012. You can read more about their responses below:
As I’ve written more than once this election season, there is a big effort by Science Debate 2012 underway to get the U.S. presidential candidates – Barack Obama and Mitt Romney – to address questions oriented around science, technology, and engineering as part of their campaign. Thankfully, both campaigns have agreed to address those questions.
By extension, the Science Debate team decided to expand their effort to include key members of the U.S. Congress, including both the House of Representatives and Senate. Unfortunately, to date, only two members of Congress have responded to these questions! Shawn Otto from Science Debate has more on this…
I’m a pretty reasonable guy, but this is stunning to me. Of the many committee leaders in Congress who deal with the nation’s science policy, just two — Reps Henry Waxman and Chris Van Hollen — have responded to the ScienceDebate questions. And House Speaker John Boehner’s team has outright declined!
Science drives over half of US economic growth and lies at the center of several of our most critical challenges and opportunities. Many of the leading science organizations in the United States arrived at a consensus on the Top American Science Questions: Congressional Edition, and the effort is supported by nearly two hundred science organizations and universities, and tens of thousands of individuals, ranging from concerned citizens to Nobel laureates and corporate CEOs.
And yet, members of Congress are ignoring the ScienceDebate questionnaire, submitted to them by Scientific American magazine, or declining to answer any questions about their policy views!
Please contact the following Congress Members’ offices right now and ask them to respond to the ScienceDebate and Scientific American questionnaire immediately. Be respectful, and tell in your own words why this is important. Ask them to send their responses back to submit@sciam.com.
Thank you!
Senate
Lamar Alexander: Tennessee (R)—ranking member, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Barbara Boxer: California (D)—chair, Committee on Environment and Public Works
Jim DeMint: South Carolina (R)—member, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (Ranking Member Kay Bailey Hutchinson is retiring)
Michael Enzi: Wyoming (R)—ranking member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Dianne Feinstein: California (D)—chair, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Tom Harkin: Iowa (D)—chair, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
James Inhofe: Oklahoma (R)—ranking member, Committee on Environment and Public Works
Folks, we need to change this situation. These are our elected officials, placed onto committees which decide issues of great scientific, technological, engineering, and educational importance which affect all of our lives. Most especially if you are a constituent of theirs, please consider contacting the Congressmembers above and tell them you want them to respond to the Science Debate challenge.
As I reported last month, President Obama’s campaign has accepted the Science Debate 2012 challenge to address their Top Science Questions. I am now happy to report that Mitt Romney’s campaign has also accepted the challenge 🙂
Let us hope these candidates take the time to make it a priority to seriously consider these important issues of science, engineering, technology, and education. Stay tuned to the Science Debate website for the candidates’ responses!
In addition, the folks over at Science Debate have also now launched a Congressional version of their candidate challenge:
House Committee on Science, Space & Technology member Rep. Todd Akin’s recent remarks regarding a woman’s body’s natural ability to “shut that whole thing down” and prevent pregnancy in cases of “legitimate rape” help illustrate why science needs to be a higher priority in the national dialogue when selecting candidates for office.
Working with us, Scientific American has asked key Members of Congress who have influence over science policy to answer these eight critical questions. So far, only a handful have indicated they will.
If you are a constituent of one of the following Members of Congress, please contact the Member’s office and ask them to respond to the ScienceDebate and Scientific American questionnaire immediately. Be respectful, and tell in your own words why this is important. Ask them to send their responses back to submit@sciam.com.
Thank you!
Senate
Lamar Alexander: Tennessee (R)—ranking member, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Barbara Boxer: California (D)—chair, Committee on Environment and Public Works
Jim DeMint: South Carolina (R)—member, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (Ranking Member Kay Bailey Hutchinson is retiring)
Michael Enzi: Wyoming (R)—ranking member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Dianne Feinstein: California (D)—chair, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Tom Harkin: Iowa (D)—chair, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
James Inhofe: Oklahoma (R)—ranking member, Committee on Environment and Public Works
As I recently blogged, the folks at Science Debate 2012 came up with a list of Top Science Questions for the United States presidential candidates. The good news is that the campaign for President Obama has committed to addressing these questions; we are now waiting on the Romney campaign to respond. No matter which candidate you support, please contact them to encourage them to give these scientific and technological issues more emphasis as the election season ramps up…
David Gergen, Michael Lubell and I had a very important conversation with Ira Flatow on this week’s Science Friday about why the science debate project is critical to the country and why it’s nevertheless an uphill battle that will take leadership from everyone receiving this email.
I strongly encourage you to listen in, and then lead. Speak out about it, especially if you are in a leadership position. Elected leaders need to hear from you. Blog about it. Share it everywhere you are able – particularly with members of the mainstream media.
We are making progress. I’m happy to report that the Obama campaign has committed to respond to the Top American Science Questions. That’s a great start. Hopefully the Romney campaign will soon follow suit. Please consider making a donation to help us continue to move the ball forward toward written answers, then then actual debate discussion of these critical issues.
Last March I passed on the news that Science Debate 2012 was looking for questions to ask the U.S. presidential candidates, and now the questions are here! In case you don’t know, the whole purpose of Science Debate is to put questions of scientific, engineering, and technological importance into the political debate; considering as how important these issues are and will be in the 21st-century, I think it is more than appropriate to hold our political candidates accountable on such matters. Take a look at the Science Debate press release and questions:
“Whenever the people are well-informed,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “they can be trusted with their own government.”
Science now affects every aspect of life and is an increasingly important topic in national policymaking.
ScienceDebate.org invited thousands of scientists, engineers and concerned citizens to submit what they felt were the the most important science questions facing the nation that the candidates for president should be debating on the campaign trail.
ScienceDebate then worked with the leading US science and engineering organizations listed at left to refine the questions and arrive at a universal consensus on what the most important science policy questions facing the United States are in 2012.
As we ramp up for yet another frenzied political season where, no doubt, there will be much drama and mudslinging, I’d like to leave you all with this one thought: for the most part, political polls and pollsters are bullshit.
There are many ways to keep score on whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney has better odds of winning the general election, which is almost exactly six months away. Here at The Signal, we are fervent evangelists of the political prediction markets, where people place real money on the line to bet on the winner. These markets proved to be more prescient than polls in the Republican primary.
Many journalists prefer to stick to reporting on raw daily polls. While these surveys offer valuable information, it is dangerous to read too much into the daily fluctuations, especially this far in advance. Currently, Rasmussen has Romney leading Obama 49 to 44, while Rueters/Ipsos has Obama leading Romney 49 to 42. This disagreement is due to several common sources of error that occur on any poll. Averaging several polls to get an aggregate figure, as RealClearPolitics does, helps ameliorate these errors.
Upcoming work by Bob Erikson of Columbia and Chris Wlezien of Temple, recently presented at the Midwest Political Science Association conference, demonstrates a second problem with following the daily polls too closely. The researchers looked through past presidential elections, aggregated the national polls, and created the most effective forecast based on that data. They found that, even when properly aggregated and averaged, national polls do not have predictive power at this point in the cycle. … [emphasis added]
You can read the entire article to get the gist of how untrustworthy most politically-oriented polls can be, but I think it is said even better by skeptical magicians Penn & Teller 🙂
The Skeptical Teacher 