What are the best science questions for presidential candidates?
DOI: 10.1063/PT.5.8171
In a January Guardian commentary , science writer Shawn Otto proclaimed a 30-second TV spot “the most memorable political ad you’ll see all year.” It shows children energetically promoting the organization Otto chairs, ScienceDebate.org , and asking viewers to propose questions for a presidential science debate. But as in the 2008 and 2012 election cycles, in 2016 the science-debate idea is drawing only limited attention.
A guest blogger at Scientific American recently quoted the view of Peter J. Hotez, a dean at Baylor College of Medicine, that science in the 2016 presidential debates has been “conspicuous by its absence.”
Prominently on its website, nevertheless, ScienceDebate.org says:
Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for public debates in which the U.S. presidential and congressional candidates share their views on the issues of science and technology policy, health and medicine, and the environment.
The organization seeks signatures for an online petition and, as the kids in the ad emphasize, suggestions for science questions to ask the candidates.
The debate effort’s sparse media coverage has included, in January, a Guardian commentary by Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists and a short piece at Grist. On 25 March, Media Matters published “Here’s your chance to submit a science debate question for the presidential candidates.” Last July, International Business Times published an article headlined “Presidential Science Debate 2016: Candidates should discuss energy, water technology and climate change, scientists say.”
In February, Mother Jones ran a piece calling for climate-change questions in the debates. Scientific American and other media organizations reported in early March that a bipartisan mix of mayors of 21 Florida coastal cities had called for each party’s Florida debate to engage climate change and sea-level rise.
On 22 March, Otto promoted the presidential science debate in the Huffington Post, just as his colleague Sheril Kirshenbaum had done in a Scientific American guest blog in January.
Last August, Newsweek published a long piece called “It’s time for presidential candidates to talk about science.” The article reported that Charles Darwin’s great-great-grandson Matthew Chapman, a British-born American author and screenwriter, had “enlisted fellow author and screenwriter Shawn Otto, author of a book on the history of science in American politics, and together they founded Science Debate.” It continued: “They rounded up 28 Nobel laureates, 108 college and university presidents, the National Academy of Sciences and a long list of artists, writers and industry leaders, and commissioned research and polling to examine how presidential candidates talk about science. They also invited candidates to a debate in 2008 and got ignored, twice.”
Newsweek cited the view of physicist and science popularizer Lawrence Krauss:
How would a science debate work? The way Chapman and his friends envision it, candidates would not be called upon to don lab coats and perform experiments before an audience of millions, as diverting as that spectacle might be. They want a debate like the domestic and foreign policy debates, in which candidates are not expected to explain the complex economics behind Social Security financing predictions or know the exact population of Tehran, the Iranian capital, but to demonstrate that they have consulted with experts and formulated ideas and opinions about policies.
“We don’t expect the next president to know the seventh digit of power [sic] or even be a scientist,” says Krauss. “But they need to have some fluency with what the issues are, who to turn to for expertise, and most important, demonstrate a willingness to base public policy, where possible, on empirical evidence rather than ideological prejudice.”
In the Guardian, Otto gave examples of possible debate questions. His list included:
* How should we manage biosecurity in an age of rapid international travel?
* Should foods made from genetically modified crops be labeled?
* Should we regulate the use of nanoparticles in the environment?
* What steps should we take to stop the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria?
* Do you support recent efforts to prosecute energy companies for funding denial of climate science?
* What steps will you take to move the US to a low-carbon economy?
* What is your vision for maintaining a competitive edge as other countries work to become global forces in science and technology?
Scientists and others have submitted only about 200 questions so far on the 2016 ScienceDebate.org page that asks, “What are the top science, tech, health, and environmental questions the candidates for president should answer?” Submitters can propose a summary question, then add a bit more detail. Here from the summary level are a few that have arrived so far:
* Where should the US store nuclear waste?
* Will you bring back the Office of Technology Assessment?
* What is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?
* What would you do to harden the American electrical grid against severe electromagnetic-pulse events?
* What do you think is the importance of biodiversity in sustaining our human population?
* What is the appropriate role for “basic” research relative to “applied” research in promoting long-term prosperity for the United States?
* How would you ensure that government policy is based on evidence and science rather than ideology or personal opinion?
Mother Jones in February quoted astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s question involving a distinct twist:
I don’t yet have questions for the candidates. All my questions are for the electorate. Top of the list: Knowing that innovations in science and technology stoke the engines of the 21st-century economy, how much weight will you give to a candidate’s policies on science and technology?
Maybe someone should ask a similar question of the media in general.
---
Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA’s history program, and was a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory.