Debating ScienceDebate2008

1. is it helpful to categorize a wide range of issues as matters of science? There are many issues where science is relevant. Cimate, energy, endangered species, environmental pollution, and stem cell research are just a few where science is deeply invovled. But deep involvement is not the same as determining the answer. Take climate, for example. There is little doubt that we're changing the world's climate and there's much agreement that many of the changes will lead to harmful effects. But, the question of how we should respond to climate change is far from settled, and it's far from settled in part because we're weighing uncertainties about economic impacts in the present against uncertainties in the future, but also in part because we're weight competing values. Scientific agreement that we are changing the climate doesn't compel a particular policy choice. So climate policy involves economics and ethicsl/aesthetics at least as much as, maybe more than, it involves science.
2. Is it helpful to have a high-profile debate on research spending? Goldston argues that problems associated with doubling the NIH budget from 1998 to 2003 came from focusing too much attention on NIH, rather than too little. Furthermore, “the best indicator of how science will fare under a president is what the candidate says not about science, but rather about domestic spending.”
3. Is a political debate the best place to discuss the “politicization” of science? When you ask the question that way, it seems pretty obvious that the answer is “No.”

After all of that, I have to say my support for ScienceDebate2008 is a little weaker than it was, but I'm not willing to jump ship yet. How candidates deal with issues where science is deeply involved tells us a lot about how they use evidence, how they evaluate expertise, and how they reach decisions, all critical features for a leader who cannot possibly know all of the technical details about any policy (s)he adopts. As Roger Pielke points out, the problems posed by the use of science in formulating policy are very similar to those posed by using intelligence.

A president who misuses or misunderstands science can't be trusted to make any decisions.

ScienceDebate2008 is a way to find out how candidates use evidence to reach decisions. What could be more important than that?³

¹I met with staff of the House Science committee when the IBRCS project of AIBS released its report on NEON. I remember meeting Goldston then, and I remember being impressed at the depth of his knowledge and the perceptiveness of his questions. I'm sure he doesn't remember me.

³Here's more from Andrew Revkin at Dot Earth.