About the author

Dan Rhoads

Dan is a postdoc working at the University of Cyprus in developmental biology. He has a BSc in molecular biology and a PhD pharmacology and biochemistry.

To enable tagging you will need to register on Bitesize Bio. We're sorry for the inconvenience, but it's free, only takes a few seconds, and it will enable you to view our seminars for free, ask questions from the professional community, and take part in the lively community of Bitesize Bio

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we, the undersigned, call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Medicine and Health, and Science and Technology Policy.

With the recent call for a science debate for next year’s contenders for the US presidential race, it seems appropriate to mention some of the questions that are of interest to scientists in general. Bora has a general list, surrounding questions of funding, information, and authority in science:

Funding – what are the priorities, how much money is dedicated to research, who pays, who receives, who decides? Basic vs. applied science; science vs. technology.

Information – freedom of information, copyright, open source, open access, who owns and controls the information? How do they define “sound science”? What is the role of universities? What is taught in public schools?

Authority – what is scientific authority, who has it, who decides? How does governing rely on scientific authority? What considerations can be allowed to dilute the policy based on empirical information about the way the world works? Role of the WH science advisor, congressional Office of Technology Assessment, National Academy of Science?

Also, specific examples of how science can aid in day-to-day policy decisions: Why and how do bridges/levees fail?; How do Influenza vaccines work?; How can we combat antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus?; What are the advantages and disadvantages of genetically-modified crops?; How can biological weapons be neutralized?; and many, many more.

These are important questions. As Chris Mooney has said:

During the past seven years of the Bush administration, America has been subject to what can only be called antiscientific governance. Scientists have been ignored, threatened, suppressed, and censored across agencies, across areas of expertise, and across issues. Policies have gone forward repeatedly without adequate scientific input and sometimes in spite of it, and have subsequently backfired.

America isn’t the only country where scientists can lobby against ‘anti-scientific governance,’ but we scientists here in the States should lead by example if we are to lead at all.