More on the science debate

Contributed by
Dec 12, 2007
<?xml encoding="utf-8" ?>

In an earlier post I talked about getting a Presidential science debate going. Chris Mooney and writer/scientist Lawrence Krauss have written an Op/Ed for the LA Times about it as well.

I'll let you read it on your own, but I want to point out this part:

When you think about it, the need for a debate on science is incontrovertible. It would reveal which candidates are best equipped to tackle contentious science-based issues, and it would help raise the level of scientific literacy across the board in this country.

A recent National Academy of Sciences' report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," suggests that the United States may soon falter in the global economy without a concerted effort to ensure continuing technological innovation and competitiveness.

Bang! Right on the money. We can argue about how science is important to explore the world and reality, and it's true and critical. But politicians typically won't care about that. However, if we tell them that America's economy and prosperity depend on science -- things they can use high-falutin' words on during the stumping -- then they are far more likely to listen.