Scientists push for debate on research and technology
By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published February 18, 2008 at 2:37 p.m.
Updated February 18, 2008 at 2:37 p.m.
Colorado scientists are among the thousands nationwide pushing for a presidential debate on science.
A science debate would show Americans which candidate is committed to making the nation the world's leader in finding cures to disease or developing the best alternative energies, say the founders of Science Debate 2008. And it would uncover the candidates who would just as soon concede those challenges to another country, they say.
Among the luminaries and renowned organizations to sign the letter asking for a debate are several Nobel Laureates and groups such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and the Council on Competitiveness.
"The federal government is strangling the scientific community by opting not to keep up with funding," said John Cambier, chairman of immunology for the University of Colorado School of Medicine.
"The future of our economy is very dependent on science and technology," said Cambier, who also heads immunology at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center. "And it's being left behind by our government's failure to spend to develop that technology."
Cambier points in particular to cuts in funding in the two big sources of money for research — the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
Richard Anthes, who runs the University Corporation for Atmospheric Science that oversees the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, also signed the letter.
"The nation is too pre-occupied with meaningless things like sports and Britney Spears' illnesses," Anthes said. "Science and technology is one of the things that have made the country great.
"To have no idea how the candidates view science is not a good thing."
So far, Congress's and the President's professed support for science hasn't translated into the necessary dollars in next year's budget, Anthes said.
"We need to know what the candidates think about it. Is it a priority or not?"
Anthes also wants to know if the candidates "believe in science," or are ideologically connected to a different kind of belief that would trump science in areas such as evolution, global warming or stem-cell research.
"We need a strong science-based administration and Congress for everything from biology to evolution to earth sciences to health."
Among the other signers from Colorado were Larry Penley, president and chancellor of the Colorado State University system, and Joseph Falke, director of the molecular biophysics program at the University of Colorado.
On Saturday, surrogates for some of the candidates engaged in a science debate in Boston put together hastily by the AAAS.
Representatives for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton blasted the Bush administration for, they claimed, letting politics trump science. Republican candidates John McCain, Michael Huckabee and Ron Paul did not send representatives to the debate.
Members of Science Debate 2008 want the actual candidates, not surrogates, to engage in a debate, and want it to happen before the national conventions in Minneapolis and Denver narrow the major candidates to two.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Through Your Lens
Submit your photos or see the Editor's Choice slide show here.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
February 18, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
It's funny that right wing religious wackos denigrate science at every turn but reap the benefits of science every minute of every day. I guess the religious folks think god just one day put medicines and high tech devices on earth. It's also interesting that right wing religious wackos generally advocate for the policies that support development of new weapons technology and waging wars on countries that haven't attacked us. Kind of ironic. I had this crazy notion that religion espoused peace and love.
February 18, 2008
4 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lonestar writes:
PonchoVia, as a right wing religious wacko who happens to be a trained scientist with two science degrees from a major university, including a post graduate degree, I could be offended by your little left wing liberal wacko rant. Because I am conservative, and I'm sure I could debate circles around when it comes to science, religion or politics, there is no need for me to be offended. Your paragraph of typical liberal, uninformed, close-minded platitudes tells a lot about you. I do agree with Mr. Anthes that we are too pre-occupied with Britney Spears, but this article appears to be just an attempt to paint Republicans as anti-science. Do you think Hillary or Barrack knows anything about science? No, and the problem is that they do not question the activists that are giving them advice. I'm sure that Mr. Anthes has good intentions, but the examples given for scientific priority such as evolution, global warming and stem-cell research, give me a break. I am well versed in all these subjects, but honest enough as a scientist to know that these topics fall more within the category of activism, and even religion and politics than they do science. Evolution and global warming in pure science terms don't even satisfy the requirements of the basic "scientific method". It requires more proof to publish a basic chemical reaction, yet people will stake their very lives on an un-provable theory. That sounds more like faith to me than science. Stem cell research may be promising, but results have only been shown when using adult stem cells. Other than that it has become a liberal political football to make sure embryos and fetuses will not be considered as real human life. And I had this crazy notion that liberals were concerned about the little guy. All I have left to say to you PonchoVia is that I will pray for you. I hope that helps you, but it will probably just make you more angry.
February 18, 2008
8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
bookwerm writes:
SWOODSOO: Obama has picked up extensive knowledge in both civil engineering and general science thru extensive self education and amazing aptitude, in addition to normal coursework in College (started at Occidental!). He pursued the Legal path not because it was the only path open to him or that he was able to pursue, but because it fit better with his goals. For you to presume to know anything at all about anything related to Obama (based on vapors in the air? General knowledge? extensive research?) just proves you to be a butt head. To claim to be a scientist and then claim Evolution doesn't satisfy basic "scientific method" merely proves that your college was quite stupid to award you any degrees.. altho I guess possessing a brain sufficient to graduate does not guarantee you will continue to use it.. which it is apparent you do not. And to claim that something as fundamental as stem cell research falls in to the area of activism?? Give me a flipping break. It is totally science based.. ON THE SCIENCE SIDE! It is only activism based on the NeoCON side! It is so so sad what the Republican party has come to when it can claim such as you as an adherent. More the LIEpublicans.. they don't maintain a balanced budgets, supported tax breaks that are unstainable, and are generally fools. More terrorist today than in 2001 DUE TO OUR ACTIONS IN IRAQ!!
Yes, a science based debate would be great.
And Yes, we deserve to know how they think and where they stand. I want to be sure they don't think like the dingleberry that is swoods00
February 18, 2008
10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lonestar writes:
You know you have hit a nerve when the big words like butt head and dingleberry come flying at you. I have no doubt that Mr. Obama is an educated man, but it certainly does not say much for his base when all he has to do is throw out shiny words like "hope", "change" and "future" to get the mindless masses to follow him. Let me clarify one point. There are really two types of evolution, micro and macro. Microevolution involves such things as bacterial mutation and intraspecies changes and is certainly scientifically proven, but most often results in deleterious effects especially in higher beings. Macroevolution involves full species to species evolution and is what most people are discussing when using the word evolution. It is here, like it or not, that evolution falls well short of scientific fact. There is an abundance of evidence for this from scientists that I do not have the space to present here, but for someone who calls them self bookwerm, you should have no problem finding ample resources. How do you feel about Mr. Obama believing in God? I have certainly heard him discuss his faith, and he has no problem quoting "...that all men are created equal". Created? That must be a real quandary for you. Stem cell research is certainly science, but as I stated above only adult stem cell research has currently shown any promise. I hope anyone who reads these posts will notice what is typical of a conservative to liberal debate. Liberals cannot help but to resort to personal attacks and name calling, which is often a true debate killer. No wonder they don't get any smarter. Goodnight now.
February 19, 2008
12:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
hbells writes:
Bookwerm's name calling is quite interesting. If you are trying to prove a point then do it. Usually people resort to name calling when they are not quite sure that their argument has any merit or because they are not sure that they’re getting their point across. You can disagree without attacking people personally. As far as swoods00's not deserving his College Degree because he does not believe in macroevolution is appalling. I wonder what kind of educational background you have? Not that it matters. Your comment about there being more terrorism now due to our actions in IRAQ proves that point. The fault lies not with Republicans but with liberal democrats like Bill Clinton. He had opportunities during his presidency to rid the world of Bin Laden and he didn’t. He didn’t want to get his hands “dirty”. He was too busy making everything “look good”. Too bad our own people had to suffer for his poor judgment. I don’t like the idea of our troops being in IRAQ either but I have news for you………..freedom is not free!! Did you think about that when you posted your opinion on this blog? That you are even able to post your opinion in a public forum? That’s what makes America so great. We defend and fight for our right for freedom and for other people and nations who cannot. I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you were born in IRAQ and lived your life without freedom. Probably not. Thankfully for every person in the world that does not agree with this war there are several more in IRAQ that do. PonchoVia, I feel for you my friend. You must have had some bad luck with fake religious wackos in your life. I hope that you are not insinuating that every Christian Republican is a religious wacko. I am sorry to say that those people exist but they are not the norm. I am a Christian and am very thankful that God created intelligent people and science. I think you can believe in God and in science.