Political Science: Debate 2008

With voters going to the polls for the presidential primaries in all three local jurisdictions tomorrow, some citizens might be concerned that very little attention has been given to where the candidates stand on scientific issues. Physics Today, the magazine of the College Park-based American Institute of Physics, has been questioning presidential candidates since 1976 on their positions regarding science. This year, they have collected candidate stands on science education, teaching evolution, nuclear weapons, science investment, energy policy, and climate change from Democrats Clinton and Obama, as well as Republicans Huckabee, McCain, and Paul.

In order to get wider attention for scientific policy issues, a non-partisan organization called Science Debate 2008 is promoting the idea of a presidential debate focused on science and technology. The proposal has been endorsed by such organizations as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Council on Competitiveness, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Individual supporters include Nobel laureates, business leaders, university presidents, and Congressional leaders.

The Science Debate campaign was featured last month on NPR's Science Friday program and discussed extensively on Andrew Revkin's Dot Earth blog last week. A Business Week Special Report last Friday, "Making Science a Presidential Priority," discussed the debate issue, and the Wired Magazine blog noted recently that the idea is gaining momentum.

By Steve Scolnik |  February 11, 2008; 6:30 PM ET Government , Policy
Previous: CommuteCast: Candidates in the Cold | Next: Alert: Potomac Primary Problematic Precipitation

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Surprised to see so few comments for our first chance of wintry weather in a number of weeks. Yes, there's a slim chance of frozen precip for the DC area, but radar echoes are already showing snowfall in southwest Virginia. Temperatures are in the mid-twenties here, I might add.

Posted by: mcleaNed | February 11, 2008 7:13 PM

Steve, this is terrific info...thanks very much for posting this!

Posted by: ~sg | February 11, 2008 7:24 PM

Ned,

It doesn't matter because the temps will only continue to rise the closer the precip gets to us. This seems to always have been our fate this horrendously dreadful winter. It's always either "too cold," or "too warm" to snow. There is no in between.

Miracles do happen however... like the temps staying below freezing for the next 6 days.

Posted by: Period | February 11, 2008 7:25 PM

CapWX,

How come your "At A Glance" forecast calls for a high of 48 tomorrow, while the NWS, where you apparently got the data from, calls for a high of 36?

Posted by: Period | February 11, 2008 7:28 PM

Period: The AAG for tomorrow, Tuesday, shows a high of 37 - I think you're a day ahead of the rest of us... ;-)

Posted by: ~sg | February 11, 2008 7:32 PM

~sg,

I swear that they just changed it. I was going to tell you to look again, and then I was like, "where in the world did it go???"
Oh well...

Posted by: Period | February 11, 2008 7:46 PM

I saw something interesting in Pittsburg's forecast. They have a winter weather advisory, but are supposed to get 6 - 10 inches of snow tomorrow (a la weather.com).

Posted by: Period | February 11, 2008 7:49 PM

Who saw "6 Degrees Could Change the World?"

Haha 5 posts.

Posted by: Period | February 11, 2008 8:02 PM

Period: Pittsburg, or Pittsburgh forecast? And, I believe you about the weird numbers on the AAG; they're rolling out a couple of change to the website, so who knows what minor effects we might see for a while.

Posted by: ~sg | February 11, 2008 8:05 PM

Seems that the weather channel is calling for light snow in PWC starting around 5 AM and lasting through 2PM with temperatures not getting anywhere near freezing until well after 2 PM. Tomorrow might be a chance at a "snow day?" LMAO - hey, I have to keep the glimmer of hope still alive, you know? Everyone else seems to have lost it. Even I have, but if TWC is right (meh), I have every right to keep that hope open. Yay!

Posted by: weatherdudeVA | February 11, 2008 8:12 PM

Oh good pickup ~sg. I had typed in Pittsburg instead of Pittsburgh, and Pittsburg is apparently moderately north and west of Pittsburgh. That explains it.

Posted by: Period | February 11, 2008 8:24 PM

Period: I'm from the Pittsburgh area, that's why I caught it. Winter there was MUCH more interesting.

Posted by: ~sg | February 11, 2008 8:42 PM

SNOW is now falling in my area with 30 degrees. Began about 10 minutes ago.

Posted by: Augusta Jim | February 11, 2008 8:51 PM

Congrats Jim.

Accuweather's forecasts always seem to be ULTRA CONSERVATIVE rain or snow. They are predicting just a little rain, AFTER (and they make sure to note this) the temps rise above freezing. Unfortunately, they are right about 99% of the time.

Posted by: Period | February 11, 2008 9:06 PM

I'm currently working on a 10pm "Alert" and a SchoolCast. Is the suspense killing you???

Posted by: Jason, Capital Weather Gang | February 11, 2008 9:28 PM

I can do a schoolcast for tomorrow: FOUR apples!

But not due to weather.

Posted by: dynagirl | February 11, 2008 9:40 PM

Jason,

Yes to this new suspense... but why are you doing such things?

Posted by: Period | February 11, 2008 9:46 PM

Thanks a lot, Jason. You've now guaranteed that I'm not getting any homework done for the next thirty minutes. :-)

Accuweather is calling for a low of 32 for the McLean area on Tuesday night with "Rain." Considering that Fairfax County usually dips a degree or two below AccWX's predictions... could we be seeing a freezing rain event in the works? Don't count on road surfaces heating up much at all tomorrow.

Posted by: mcleaNed | February 11, 2008 9:48 PM

Jason,

How can you give an alert if there is no alert?

Posted by: Period | February 11, 2008 9:52 PM

Period:
One small reason is the fact that Augusta Jim has received a little snow during the past hour(still flurries). This was not supposed to happen! This system is over performing.

Posted by: Augusta Jim | February 11, 2008 10:09 PM

=]

Posted by: Period | February 11, 2008 10:13 PM

Of all the candidates, Huckabee is the most reactionary, supporting creationism and pseudoscience.

My religious position is not that of the "atheist" but of the Nichiren (SGI) Buddhist. We Buddhists are generally skeptical of the "personal", "omnipotent" God, and cannot take the Bible "literally", though amenable to many "Biblical" principles. We subscribe to the doctrine that MODERN RELIGION MUST BE IN ACCORD WITH THE FINDINGS OF MODERN SCIENCE. Thus we CANNOT support "creationism" or "intelligent design", an idea which smacks strongly of the discredited anti-Galileo opinion of an "Earth-centered" Universe. There is too much immunological evidence linking Homo sapiens to other species within the order Primates, class Mammalia. It is our general opinion that Man and other Primates arose (not "descended") from a common Mammalian ancestry, through neo-Darwinian natural selection. As to the questions of Heaven, Hell and the other eight worlds (the highest of which is Buddhahood or Enlightenment, not Heaven or "Rapture", the sixth of the Ten Worlds!) we believe that individuals by their actions determine their Karma, which in turn determines which of the Ten Worlds an individual will spend his/her time within during this earthly existence. The individual can eradicate negative Karma through the practice of true Buddhism (chanting of the mantric formula "Nam myoho renge kyo"--recitation in capsule form of the Lotus Sutra, along with the leading of others to the True Way of the Buddha). Our "Scripture" or canon consists of the Lotus Sutra (available in English translation from SGI), the collected Writings of Nichiren Daishonin (English translation currently available from SGI in two volumes) and the "Ongi Kuden" or Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings on the Lotus Sutra from Nichiren to his chief disciples (also available from SGI in English translation). We also follow the guidance of the first three presidents of the Soka Gakkai (SGI) organization, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, Josei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda. Thus one may see I'm far from being an atheist, while rejecting pseudo-scientific teachings.

Posted by: El Bombo | February 12, 2008 10:37 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company