Commentary: A science-literate president, please

15 December 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Lawrence Krauss

"WE IN the United States are burdened with an election campaign that
lasts for almost two years and saturates the airwaves. To give the
appearance of substantive discussion, each party has imposed a series
of televised debates where, for a whole 90 seconds, each candidate
gets to provide profound, in-depth analysis of the leading issues of
the day.

I wrote some months ago in New Scientist about my dismay resulting
from one Republican debate, in which the candidates were asked if they
believed in the theory of evolution. Three of them bluntly said no. In
the next debate one candidate noted that he was running for president
of the United States, not for a local school board official, and so
the issue was unimportant. Most Americans agreed with him, according
to polls taken shortly after the debate.

But I still believe that widespread disinterest in the scientific
literacy of our next president does not mean the issue is irrelevant.
It may rather reflect the fact that most Americans are themselves
scientifically illiterate. A 2001 National Science Foundation survey
of scientific literacy among US adults, for example, found that 50 per
cent could not say for sure that the Earth orbits the sun and takes a
year to do it.

Earlier this month, I joined a group of scientists, including several
Nobel laureates and heads of major scientific societies, in issuing a
public call for a presidential debate devoted to science and
technology. The debate would cover three broad categories: the
environment; health and medicine; and science and technology policy.

Regardless of who is elected in 2008, and whether or not the public is
currently focused on these concerns, the US president will make
decisions over the following four years on issues ranging from stem
cells to nuclear proliferation. In fact, almost all of the major
challenges the world faces in this new century - the environment,
national security, economic competitiveness, energy strategies - have
their roots in science and technology. The decisions the president
makes in these areas will have a global impact. In some cases, they
may be irreversible.

It will be a big challenge to come up with effective policies to
address these issues. Creating the political will to carry them out
may be an even bigger one. Such leadership requires confidence based
on conviction. Most major successful initiatives in the US can be
traced back to a president who has acted as an "educator-in-chief" as
well as commander-in-chief. Can someone who is not comfortable
thinking about scientific issues have the necessary conviction to lead
instead of follow when it comes to policies based on science?

The strange thing is that in spite of apparent disinterest on the
surface, deep down the American people do seem to understand that
science and technology are essential to solving many of the problems
we face. When reports surfaced that avian flu might arise as a human
threat, everyone from the president down called for studies to
determine how quickly the virus might mutate and jump from birds to
people. In spite of the public controversy regarding evolution, there
were no calls to ignore the threat because the virus might be divinely
"designed".

We owe it to the next generation to take ownership of these issues
now. To achieve this, we need to build on this vague awareness of
science's importance and create a more scientifically literate
electorate and leadership. A presidential debate on these subjects
would be a good start."

<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626342.300-commentary-a-scienceliterate-president-please.html>

Commentary: A science-literate president, please

15 December 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Lawrence Krauss

"WE IN the United States are burdened with an election campaign that
lasts for almost two years and saturates the airwaves. To give the
appearance of substantive discussion, each party has imposed a series
of televised debates where, for a whole 90 seconds, each candidate
gets to provide profound, in-depth analysis of the leading issues of
the day.

I wrote some months ago in New Scientist about my dismay resulting
from one Republican debate, in which the candidates were asked if they
believed in the theory of evolution. Three of them bluntly said no. In
the next debate one candidate noted that he was running for president
of the United States, not for a local school board official, and so
the issue was unimportant. Most Americans agreed with him, according
to polls taken shortly after the debate.

But I still believe that widespread disinterest in the scientific
literacy of our next president does not mean the issue is irrelevant.
It may rather reflect the fact that most Americans are themselves
scientifically illiterate. A 2001 National Science Foundation survey
of scientific literacy among US adults, for example, found that 50 per
cent could not say for sure that the Earth orbits the sun and takes a
year to do it.

Earlier this month, I joined a group of scientists, including several
Nobel laureates and heads of major scientific societies, in issuing a
public call for a presidential debate devoted to science and
technology. The debate would cover three broad categories: the
environment; health and medicine; and science and technology policy.

Regardless of who is elected in 2008, and whether or not the public is
currently focused on these concerns, the US president will make
decisions over the following four years on issues ranging from stem
cells to nuclear proliferation. In fact, almost all of the major
challenges the world faces in this new century - the environment,
national security, economic competitiveness, energy strategies - have
their roots in science and technology. The decisions the president
makes in these areas will have a global impact. In some cases, they
may be irreversible.

It will be a big challenge to come up with effective policies to
address these issues. Creating the political will to carry them out
may be an even bigger one. Such leadership requires confidence based
on conviction. Most major successful initiatives in the US can be
traced back to a president who has acted as an "educator-in-chief" as
well as commander-in-chief. Can someone who is not comfortable
thinking about scientific issues have the necessary conviction to lead
instead of follow when it comes to policies based on science?

The strange thing is that in spite of apparent disinterest on the
surface, deep down the American people do seem to understand that
science and technology are essential to solving many of the problems
we face. When reports surfaced that avian flu might arise as a human
threat, everyone from the president down called for studies to
determine how quickly the virus might mutate and jump from birds to
people. In spite of the public controversy regarding evolution, there
were no calls to ignore the threat because the virus might be divinely
"designed".

We owe it to the next generation to take ownership of these issues
now. To achieve this, we need to build on this vague awareness of
science's importance and create a more scientifically literate
electorate and leadership. A presidential debate on these subjects
would be a good start."

<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626342.300-commentary-a-scien
celiterate-president-please.html>