Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 6 February 2008 | Nature 451, 621 (2008) | doi:10.1038/451621a
Column: Party of One
A debatable proposition
Having the US presidential candidates face off over science issues could backfire, David Goldston argues.
Scientists pride themselves on being independent thinkers, yet that trait isn't always apparent when it comes to politics. Take, for example, the current web-based petition to push the US presidential candidates to hold a 'science debate' ("http://www.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Mr Goldston makes some very good points. It's important to be careful what you wish for, especially if you can't control the genie after it leaves the bottle. But it's important, too, to consider another aspect of wish fulfillment: how much of the wish is realistically going to be fulfilled. Is it realistic to expect that there will be a debate between the candidates devoted solely to scientific issues and policies, when so many other issues from Iraq to the economy to health care need full exploration? Probably not. But the candidates don't control the debate questions; the interrogators from the press do. Even if this petition (which I signed, and have urged others to sign) causes a few more questions related to scientific issues to be thrown at the candidates and discussed in the media afterward, we will have made an important stride. History has shown us that the US populace can respond positively to scientific issues, as for example with the step-up in research and education funding after the Russians launched Sputnik. We may well have such a groundswell brewing with the issue of global warming today. And it was quite revealing when the ten Republican candidates were asked whether they accepted evolution -- and three admitted they didn't! -- Kevin Padian, University of California, Berkeley and National Center for Science Education