Would you tune into a U.S. presidential debate that focused on science?

Question

Supporters of Science Debate 2008 argue that science should be a central theme in the presidential election because the important scientific challenges facing the U.S. call for unbiased scientific data to support policy decisions, and because the country needs to encourage scientific and technological innovation to stay competitive in the global marketplace.

Personally, I have mixed feelings on this sort of debate, but I'd be interested in hearing some more discussion on climate change and energy policy. I'd also like to hear candidates justify some of the statements from their campaigns. For instance, Senator Clinton could explain "evidence-based decisionmaking" with regards to science policy. Senator McCain could explain ads that ridicule federally funded research on the size of grizzy bear populations. Senator Obama could clarify his thinking about basic research and its importance for combating climate change.

So, would a debate with a general science theme interest you?

Answer 1

Sure. I could use a good laugh.

While, emotionally, I would like to have a scientist for president, I would be quite satisfied to have one that had good science advisors and knew enough to take their advice, rather than relying on astronomy or religion for scientific answers. We won't mention names.

We have has a couple of engineers and a good amateur scientist/inventor as presidents. a science background is good but it is no guarantee of competence.

Answer 2

I would love to see a science debate for two reasons.  one, it would be amusing to me to watch politicians try to answer hard scientific questions without someone giving them an answer.  two, it might make people realize that we elect leaders with almost no scientific background to make decisions that they are not qualified to make.  It might make us consider electing scientists to make decisions regarding health, energy, and environmental policies.

Answer 3

Good question.  I don't expect a president to understand science.  But I do expect one to understand the importance of science to society and to fund it appropriately and wisely.  I expect one to realize when a 'scientific' study is frivolous, and work to get our investment in science to be more wisely spent.  I expect them to use their advisors well, so that claims such as global warming are evaluated honestly and objectively, realizing the pressure being applied to turn the evaluation one way or another.  I would rather hear a candidate think than parrot a speech.

But now the skeptic in me speaks.  How many voters actually think for themselves, and thus care whether a candidate thinks?  A few people may think enough, and study history and sociology enough, to realize that socialism doesn't work very well.  But when those who vote for benefits and entitlements for themselves, and perceive that they will be paid for by someone else, become the majority, then the entitlements become unstoppable, and the drag on what's left of entrepreneurship becomes stultifying.

Answer 4

They did a "faith & religion" one...why not science?