0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
On Friday Business Week ran this story on us.Over the last several days heavy hitters like Intel Chairman Craig Barrett and former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala have signed on, as have numerous universities, including Stanford, Georgia Tech, Cornell, and several others. Yesterday, Earth & Sky Radio began running this interview with one of our organizers around the nation.But the big news is we have invited the candidates. And we've issued a press release. The debate is set for April 18 at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. That's four days before the Pennsylvania Primary. The New York Times, MSNBC, and others have picked up the story. In fact, just about the only people we haven't heard from are the campaigns. If you have contacts at the Clinton, Huckabee, McCain or Obama campaigns, please urge them to accept. Please tell them this is a mainstream concern about the big policy challenges the next president and our nation are facing. We are doing this for the good of our nation, and we hope those who would lead it take the future of the American economy and job security seriously enough to come to Philadelphia. We hope they take having a discussion with American voters about climate change seriously enough to come to Philadelphia. We hope they realize that we as American innovators, business leaders, scientists and thought leaders, and as over 100 leading American universities and organizations, that we care about our nation's investments in science and math education, that we care about our broken healthcare system and our declining investments in basic research, that we care about scientific integrity, about clean energy, about the future of the oceans and about the biodiversity that secures life on our planet, that these are not arcane, quirky science questions, they are questions about American jobs, about the health of our families and businesses, about our children and the future of the planet, and we hope that those who would lead us them seriously enough to come to Philadelphia.Thanks for being a part of this historic and important initiative. Finally, please consider making an online donation here to support our efforts.The team at ScienceDebate2008.com
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P
Dear Candidate,The weekly PBS television broadcasts NOW on PBS and NOVA, the PBS science series, along with Public Television Stations KOPB (Portland, OR), WNET (New York) and WGBH (Boston), together with Science Debate 2008, representing the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Council on Competitiveness would like to invite you to participate in Is America Losing its Competitive Edge? A Presidential Debate on the role of Science in America's Future, a nationally televised event currently being planned for Portland State University, Portland, Oregon on the evening of Friday, May 2, May 9, or May 16. We will broadcast even if only one candidate confirms, and we will publicize who confirmed first, so this could be a major win for your candidate with these communities both nationally and in Oregon, whose economy is dominated by the tech industry and whose largest employer is Intel, whose Chairman is one of the supporters of this initiative. The moderator for the event will be David Brancaccio, the host of NOW on PBS, with a panel of internationally recognized scientists selected by the organizers, Science Debate 2008. The idea for A President Debate on the role of Science in America’s Future is a national, non-partisan discussion endorsed by most of the American science, academic, medical and technology communities, Including thousands of major business leaders, university presidents, Nobel laureates, scientists, and journalists. Please visit here for a detailed list. This is not a science quiz; it is intended as a serious policy debate about several major issues Americans are concerned with that fall along this theme, including climate change, economic competitiveness in the new global knowledge economy, energy security and sustainability, health and medicine, science education, and other related issues. We will give all confirmed candidates a copy of the anticipated questions five days in advance so that you may prepare. These are some of the most important challenges the next president is going to be facing, and we would hope that your candidate has plans for tackling them already. The voters are highly interested to see what they are, and how your candidate differs, or does not differ, from the others. Please feel free to have your staff contact me if you are interested in exploring the logistics of this further. Best Regards, Shawn Lawrence Otto On behalf of the Steering Committee and the Signers of Science Debate 2008
Dear Matthew,Last week MSNBC ran this story on our efforts to get the presidential candidates to debate science policy issues.Our opening gambit, an April 18 debate in Philadelphia, is looking less and less likely. Obama has declined, Clinton has been non-committal, and McCain has been non-responsive. We want to acknowledge a national debt of gratitude to the Franklin Institute for their outstanding and visionary leadership on this issue, and we will undoubtedly work together with them in the future.But if not April 18 in Philly, then what? Is it over?Not by a long shot.Rather, the candidates' reluctance demonstrates the very reason why our initiative is so important and must continue. These issues will not go away by sticking our heads in the sand, and neither will the candidates' responsibility to tackle them, or the voters' right to assess the candidates on their plans. So like the candidates, we are beginning to focus on the next major primary venue, which is Oregon in May.To that end, we have formed a working relationship with the venerable PBS television programs NOVA, their science series, and NOW on PBS, their weekly news program, to cosponsor a national debate broadcast. NOW host David Brancaccio will moderate, supported by a panel of internationally recognized scientists agreed upon by our cosponsors. We've proposed not one but three possible dates. Click below to see The Invitation, #2:Will the candidates demonstrate their commitment to these issues and accept? We argue below why they should.The Sputniks of our timeIt wasn't public outcry after Sputnik I and Sputnik II that moved the US into action. It was the media, led largely at first by the New York Times, that raised the alarm, and policymakers and the public responded, culminating four years later in JFK's historic speech focusing the nation on the common goal of putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade. If you haven't listened to it recently, we encourage you to, as it is applicable to today's situation in many ways, including how the media are different now.While there is a broad range of science topics we want debated, today we do have a new Sputnik I and Sputnik II - science policy issues of such magnitude that they should be galvanizing the nation. They aren't as concrete as a Soviet satellite orbiting the earth, but they are far more ominous, and should justify our efforts all on their own.Sputnik I: Ever since the huge influx on intellectual capital we enjoyed during WWII, science and engineering have been responsible for half the economic growth of the United States. But if current trends hold, by 2010, in just two short years, 90% of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia. This represents a huge shift in global economics, and is perhaps the single largest challenge to the ongoing strength of the US economy - yet it is being virtually ignored by the candidates. A debate would help focus the candidates and the nation on developing a hopeful plan to tackle this.Sputnik II: Climate change is almost universally accepted among scientists, and in fact the data indicate that the situation is critical. Action taken in the next 1-2 presidential terms may determine the future viability of the planet. The candidates have plans dealing with this on their web sites, but generally they speak about reducing carbon emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by the year 2050 - so long after the next president's term as to be somewhat analogous to JFK having said "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this century is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." A debate would help focus the candidates and the nation on assessing whether the candidates' plans are adequate, and what hopeful steps we can take as a nation to rebuild our economy around clean, low-carbon energy technologies like the ITER project, which congress inexplicably zeroed funding for in the last omnibus budget bill. Such a national goal would reinvigorate our nation's entire science program, and fill our nation with hopeful work, high investment returns, and well-paying jobs toward a unifying moral goal: preserving planetary viability and American economic strength for this and future generations.Senatorial Science DebatesWe are also now considering senatorial science debates in a few key states, moving slowly towards our longer-range objective of elevating science in our national dialogue and injecting it into our electoral process. More on that as it develops. Those who preside over a college, university or science museum in a state where there is a competitive senate race and are interested in exploring this with us please reply to this email.Working with the mediaSunday evening, Shawn Lawrence Otto spoke in Austin, Texas to a group of National Public Radio science reporters about "Science in an Election Year," and how they are at the forefront of the key policy issues facing America. The event was hosted by Earth & Sky and organized by Bari Scott. "This is a nation that used to gather its children in auditoriums to watch a moon shot," he said. "Every boy I knew had a model rocket in his bedroom. That's how much we valued science." He explored why science has fallen in our national dialogue and what could be done to turn it around. The free press was created to hold government accountable, he argued, and limiting the press to government- or party-approved messages is the first step taken by dictators. Elected leaders are rarely able to lead beyond responding to public concerns, because without public concern there is generally not enough support to get anything passed. But how does the public know what to be concerned about? They rely on their organs of communication - the media. It is the media's job to report on the facts (versus a politically contrived "balance" of opinions) so that the public is aware of what the most concerning issues are - that is what news is. And in the case of science, there are objective facts, and there is a lot of news. He explained the mission and news of Science Debate 2008, talked about some of the top science stories of the season, and concluded by giving them a "holy charge" to hold candidates and the government accountable and ask hard questions on science and engineering policy issues, and especially those related to economic competitiveness, energy security & sustainability, and climate change, because "what could be a greater moral imperative than the ongoing viability of the planet?"Finally, the travel we are doing is expensive. Would you be able to contribute? Is there a better cause? Thank you.Onward,The team at ScienceDebate2008.com
Clinton and Obama will debate faith but not scienceDear Matthew,I am sorry to send two emails in such short succession, but I thought you should know that after declining our invitation to debate science in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton yesterday agreed to attend "The Compassion Forum," a forum of "wide-ranging and probing discussions of policies related to moral issues." CNN will serve as the exclusive broadcaster of the "presidential-candidate forum on faith, values and other current issues" at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa., April 13 at 8 p.m. You can read more here.Perhaps among the moral issues discussed should be whether they have a moral obligation to more fully engage on science issues, since the future viability of the planet may hang in the balance, for starters. Is there a larger moral imperative? How about the future economic health of the United States and the prosperity of its families? Science & engineering have driven half our economic growth since WWII, yet but 2010 if trends hold 90% of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia. Then there are the moral questions surrounding the health of our families with stem cell research, genomics, health insurance policy, and medical research. There's biodiversity loss and the health of the oceans and the morality of balancing destruction of species against human needs and expenses, there's population and development and clean energy research, there's food supply and GMO crops and educating children to compete in the new global economy and securing competitive jobs. Science issues are moral issues.I would encourage you to write letters to the editor, emails to the campaigns, and blog postings pointing this out. And if you can, support our ongoing effort to turn this country around.Shawn Lawrence OttoScienceDebate2008.com
This is not a science quiz; it is intended as a serious policy debate about several major issues Americans are concerned with that fall along this theme, including climate change, economic competitiveness in the new global knowledge economy, energy security and sustainability, health and medicine, science education, and other related issues. We will give all confirmed candidates a copy of the anticipated questions five days in advance so that you may prepare.
With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.
