Posted by Leslie on December 14th, 2007 | No Comments

I found this page via his link to my previous post…but I really like the way he sums up what the Science Debate is really about and why it’s needed.

What we primarily want is to gauge their relationship with reality - will they govern using the best available information about the way the world really works, or will they govern by gut-sense and spiritual inspiration, or will they govern by immediate economic considerations only?

He finds there are three major themes candidates should focus on. This year I’ll be paying much closer attention to the various presidential debates and listening for their stands on the following. What about you? Do you have any opinions on this debate regarding science?

Funding - what are the priorities, how much money is dedicated to research, who pays, who receives, who decides? Basic vs. applied science; science vs. technology.

Information - freedom of information, copyright, open source, open access, who owns and controls the information? How do they define “sound science”? What is the role of universities? What is taught in public schools?

Authority - what is scientific authority, who has it, who decides? How does governing rely on scientific authority? What considerations can be allowed to dilute the policy based on empirical information about the way the world works? Role of the WH science advisor, congressional Office of Technology Assessment, National Academy of Science?