There is no American progress without science progress.

We entered the scene against a backdrop of deep concern. Was our government truly committed to policymaking based on the best available evidence? Did elected officials appreciate that not a sector of a modern society can be sustained without constant efforts to innovate, that the very future of the country hangs in the balance? Is there freedom of speech for those appointed to protect the public from disease and improve their prospects of a society that promotes human flourishing?

Now, to top it all off, the current financial crisis is not reassuring about the future of funding for research and development, either by government or the private sector.

It will be years before we know whether we have turned the corner on these worries. Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that a serious conversation has begun. The ScienceDebate 2008 movement did not result in a presidential debate on science policy, but it did stimulate renewed interest in the importance of getting these issues on the radar at the highest levels of our leadership. Several major organizations have published analyses and recommendations for enhancing the role of White House science advice, and there is buzz about reviving some version of the congressional Office of Technology Assessment. The organized scientific community is making a greater effort to communicate with the public, including an increasing number of public events.

It seems to us that the movement to put the direction of American science back on the map is quickening and, through our contributors and readers, Science Progress has become part of that movement. We are pleased that traffic to our site has steadily increased over the year, as have subscribers to our weekly email. But the most important measures of our success are the dynamism and intelligence of our articles and blog posts and the feedback we receive from readers around the country. Besides several highly visible panels at the Center for American Progress and the National Press Club, we have helped sponsor such events as the World Stem Cell Summit. Several weeks ago Science Progress columnist Chris Mooney and I participated in a science policy panel at Ole Miss, as part of the run up to the first presidential debate. And of course the first hard copy of Science Progress was widely distributed to science policy experts in Washington, and we have organized a group of experts on financing science and technology to advance our understanding of the elements needed to promote regional centers of innovation.

We are excited about the new opportunities to make our case that will come with a new administration and a new congress. And next year Bellevue Literary Press will provide us with another way to reach the public with the first book to emerge from Science Progress. You can expect to hear more about this project, entitled Science Next, in 2009.

I’m very grateful to the people who do the heavy lifting, especially assistant editor Andrew Pratt and editorial director Ed Paisley. Kit Batten and Mike Rugnetta are two CAP staffers who guide and write for us, and we scored a real coup in recruiting the wise and experienced science reporter for The Washington Post, Rick Weiss, as a regular columnist along with Chris Mooney.

Ultimately, it was the leadership of the Center for American Progress, especially CAP’s president John Podesta, who took what we think was a winning gamble on this endeavor. Like our contributors and readers, they know that there is no American progress without science progress.

Jonathan D. Moreno is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor and Professor of Medical Ethics and of the History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Editor-in-Chief of Science Progress.

Science, Cultured

Science Progress contributing editor Chris Mooney surveys the interactions between science, politics, and culture from Los Angeles, California. He is author of two previous books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs at The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum. (Photo: flickr.com/sarahfelicity)

Tomorrow, along with Science Progress editor Jonathan Moreno, I’ll be at the University of Mississippi—the site of the first of three official presidential debates—for an event that may be as close as we come, geographically and perhaps substantively as well, to achieving the explicit goal of the ScienceDebate2008 initiative. Ole Miss has planned a variety of events in the run up to the big show on September 26, and thanks to the initiative of philosophy professor Neil Manson, one of them will focus on science policy and the election—our panel.

I was invited down to Mississippi because of my role in originally helping to impel the ScienceDebate2008 push—I was one of six founders and currently serve on the steering committee, although in this column I speak only for myself—and for my many commentaries on the relationship between politics and science over the past several years. And coming from this background, let me say that at Ole Miss I plan on taking the opportunity to state some strong opinions. Although I suppose this could still change, I’m not happy with the minimal role that science has played in this election. I find it a revealing comment on the media and the political process today.

These responses, though I’m very glad to have them, do not substitute for a science and technology policy debate.

In fairness, we who have worked on ScienceDebate2008 are pleased and heartened that in the past few weeks, Barack Obama and now John McCain have both answered the fourteen written science policy questions that we put to their campaigns, questions winnowed down from an original field of some 3,400 submitted by our supporters. The replies have gotten considerable blogospheric pickup, and make for some interesting reading, especially if you’re inclined to do a compare and contrast (which is not the purpose of this column). It is not unprecedented to find presidential candidates answering science policy questions in writing—George W. Bush and John Kerry both did so for Science magazine in 2004, for instance—but we’re glad that it has happened in this election just as it did in the last one, and that the responses are quite meaty and substantive.

Still, I’m not completely satisfied. Although I’m sure the candidates agree with and approved them, let’s remember that these responses are coming from the campaigns, not the candidates directly. Their mass media pickup, as opposed to their online pickup, has thus far been relatively small—nothing remotely comparable to the mass attention paid to Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy, for instance. And they do not show us the candidates intellectually engaging with science policy or with each other in a dialogic way, so that we can determine how they think and how much they really know.

In short, these responses, though I’m very glad to have them, do not substitute for a science and technology policy debate, and neither do they achieve the central goal of ScienceDebate2008—namely, to dramatically elevate the prominence of science policy in this historic election, and to do so in a nonpartisan way.

Why didn’t we get more? Well, one central factor is the role of the mass media—and especially the television news media—in all of this. I’m fairly confident in saying that if the year had been 1958, not 2008, and the nation’s scientific brain trust had called upon its presidential candidates to discuss science policy just one year after the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the politicians would not have turned down the opportunity. That’s because science was far more prominent in American life those days, and the call for a debate would have garnered much more concerted attention in a much less fragmented, frantic, and entertainment- and spectacle-driven media environment.

By contrast, today the story with ScienceDebate2008 and the media has been the same from the start: Specialized science-oriented media outlets and blogs are very interested in the initiative, but mass TV news media outlets—the CNNs, the NBCs, and so on—don’t seem to think it’s news that the American scientific community has organized like never before to call for a presidential science policy debate. They’re wrong, but nevertheless, they’ve made their call, and they play a very large role in setting the agenda.

And what of the candidates and campaigns? First, they respond heavily to the agenda setting power of the mass media, so it’s a no-brainer in this respect that they would not participate in ScienceDebate2008. Furthermore, I suspect their political advisers aren’t very keen on the idea, perhaps seeing plenty of risks in the prospect of such a debate and relatively few rewards. So especially if the media isn’t blaring away about it, why take a chance?

We achieved a lot with ScienceDebate2008, especially when it came to mobilizing the science community; perhaps it’s over-optimistic to think we could have accomplished everything we originally sought. But I think we have to keep pushing. The goal here, as I see it, is nothing less than to restore the prominence of science in American public life—and we’re still a long way from achieving it.

Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.

Scientists and Engineers for America just released the results of a poll of over 1,000 Americans on how likely they would be to support candidates based upon their positions on key science and technology issues. SEA anticipated a positive reaction to the questions, but was stunned by the overwhelmingly affirmative response. Eighty-six percent of those polled, for example, say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who is committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century through public investments in science and technology education.

Similarly, 84 percent said they would be more likely to support a candidate who is committed to reducing the cost and improving the quality of healthcare through public investments in science and technology. And 52 percent indicated they would be much more likely to support candidates who expressed that science and technology is a priority for them.

Equally impressive was the party breakdown. While there remained a divide between Democrats and Republicans on all of the issues, members of both parties clearly viewed science as important. The largest divide came on climate change, where only 56 percent of Republican respondents said that they would be more likely to vote for someone committed to addressing global climate change through public investments in science and technology. This compared to 84 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of independent voters in favor of candidates who would devote public science and technology funds to fight climate change. Add up those majorities in favor of S&T spending to fight global warming and its clear it would be foolish for any campaign not to at least address the issue and support science.

Naturally, in Congress and in a political campaign, science will play second fiddle to a mismanaged war, eroding civil rights and what appears to be the start of a nasty recession. But if SEA’s polling numbers are correct, then giving science short-shrift or ignoring it completely is a strategic mistake. The poll doesn’t tell us why people valued science or how science ranked against other issues, but those details seems unimportant with such overwhelmingly positive support.

Ask And Ye Shall Receive

There are, of course, two science-related issues that most campaigns have addressed, embryonic stem cells and global warming. But that is largely due to the intense pressure put on them by the press. For the most part, campaigns have not been specific about their stance on global warming, just that it needs to be addressed. This is clearly insufficient.

The efforts to get candidates to answer basic questions on major issues is a direct response to the desire and need for change, for increased transparency and accountability by those who serve the public.

To address this critical issue directly, a coalition of organizations led by SEA and SD2008 have come up with a series of 7 questions for congressional candidates, and 14 questions for the presidential candidates on critical science and technology issues. SEA has also set up a system for the public to look up their local candidates and send the questions to them directly through the website. Candidates can then log into the website and post their responses.

As of today 18 congressional campaigns have logged in and started to answer the questions, which appear on SEA’s SHARP Network, a Wikipedia-like webpage detailing the health and science stances of all members of Congress and all candidates for office. This is, of course, not the only effort to get candidates for office to answer questions on essential issues. For example, Research America launched a campaign to get candidates to answer questions on health issues.

These web based initiatives are excellent examples of how basic Web 2.0 principles have spread into campaign and advocacy arenas. They embody a new sense of urgency that our government be truly of the people and for the people. Take the poll as an example. It tells a much larger story than the mere fact that science is important to the public. It shows that presumptions about what the public cares about ought to be challenged by advocacy groups and citizens who want their voice heard and represented by their candidates.

The efforts to get candidates to answer basic questions on major issues is a direct response to the desire and need for change, for increased transparency and accountability by those who serve the public. Indeed, the Internet has changed the way we consume information, but it has also fundamentally changed how we communicate and has empowered the people to organize and demand respect on a level that has not been seen in our time. Candidates have a choice today. They can tell their constituents where they stand on the issues. Or they can ignore them, and continue with business as usual. But the public also has a choice if their candidates fail to address their concerns. They can return the favor in the voting booth in November.

Michael Stebbins is the Director of Biology Policy for the Federation of American Scientists, President of the Scientists and Engineers for America Action Fund and author of Sex, Drugs and DNA: Science’s Taboos Confronted.

How is more speech about science policy by politicians harmful?

But they didn’t. No candidate took the lead, not even Hillary Clinton, who had previously sought to claim the mantle of “science candidate” with a major speech on the 50^th anniversary of Sputnik in October of last year. Overall, from the candidates, the silence on science and technology was deafening. This remarkable opportunity to inject science policy into the national political discourse during campaign season was, accordingly, squandered.

A lot of hay has since been made about what the candidates have decided to debate and discuss instead of science—notably, Clinton and Obama recently participated in a forum on “Faith in Public Life” at Pennsylvania’s Messiah College. Meanwhile, there’s a new invite out—the central organization behind the April 18 Philadelphia proposal, ScienceDebate2008, has now added various PBS programs and public television stations to its coalition and called for a nationally broadcast event in Oregon on a Friday in May.

So it’s still conceivable that a presidential science policy debate may happen this year. But as a member of the ScienceDebate2008 steering committee (now speaking only for myself), I hardly think I’m betraying any inside information when I say that given the candidates’ failure thus far to commit, we can’t bank on it.

Accordingly, now may not be too early to draw some lessons from what was—whatever happens next—a remarkable effort. Some members of the SD08 steering committee and I recently published thoughts along these lines as a “Policy Forum” article in Science, but I’d like to go farther.

First, let’s get this out of the way: Ignore the Naysayers. Nature columnist David Goldston (subscription) and several others have actually criticized the ScienceDebate2008 initiative, but I don’t envy them the intellectual ground they’re trying to defend. I mean, come on: How can you seriously argue that a publicly televised presidential debate about science policy is going to be a bad thing on balance–that it somehow will hurt either science, politics, or national discourse? How is more speech about science policy by politicians harmful?

Answer: It isn’t. Or at least, any argument suggesting more public debate is bad faces an almost ridiculously high burden of proof.

We didn’t have a big infrastructure—heck, we didn’t even have a budget. We relied on volunteers, motivation, and conviction.

Second, let’s admit it: Whatever Happens in 2008, We Can Build on the Experience in 2012. As the ScienceDebate2008 steering committee observes in Science, “The extraordinary speed at which ScienceDebate2008 became a national cause célèbre demonstrates that the U.S. scientific establishment can be quickly organized when motivated.” True, but that speed was necessary in part because we got something of a late start in organizing. This initiative didn’t really get going until November and December of 2007, in part because by then many of us were fed up with the repeated failure of the candidates to discuss science policy and of debate moderators to ask them about it. Alas, some candidates were already on the verge of dropping out of the race by the time we were really running. While not all ScienceDebate2008 organizers and participants may agree, in my view the best time to get the candidates to talk about science policy is when there are lots of them, rather than after the field has narrowed and political campaigns and consultants become increasingly risk averse. So in 2012, forces advocating a science policy debate can be ready to pounce much earlier in the game.

The third point is perhaps the most important one to me personally: No Matter What Happens This Year, There is No Excuse for Science To Run and Hide Again From Politics. One of my greatest fears is that if no debate ultimately occurs this year, ScienceDebate2008 will be viewed as a failure, rather than a creative first step towards a broader engagement between science and society. To me that would be not only wrongheaded but tragic. Unfortunately, though, there’s a troubling history of scientists making experimental forays into politics and then backing away again. Consider a famous episode from 1964, when a group of luminaries formed Scientists and Engineers for Johnson-Humphrey, an organization that powerfully attacked Republican candidate Barry Goldwater for his bluster about nuclear weapons. The scientist-activists helped damage Goldwater’s campaign, but the frontal assault discomforted many researchers who viewed the role of science as being to inform policy from a detached vantage point, rather than to lobby directly in favor of candidates. Accordingly, after the 1964 election the research community largely retreated to the sidelines of politics rather than building on what had been started.

With ScienceDebate2008, we have to prevent a similar retreat.

Perhaps one way of doing so will be to remember what is, to my mind, the most uplifting lesson to come from all of this: Think Outside the Box, and Never Give Up. ScienceDebate2008 came out of nowhere, and got farther than anyone would have expected faster than anyone would have imagined. In Science, we observe that this was partly a function of who formed the organization and how we spread the word: We didn’t come from the science establishment, and we didn’t rely on the mainstream media. We were inspired individuals, unattached, uncommitted, and we used blogs and Facebook.com to activate the netroots. We didn’t have a big infrastructure—heck, we didn’t even have a budget. We relied on volunteers, motivation, and conviction.

If we’re ever going to succeed in pushing science and society closer together, through an initiative like this one or in some other way, these virtues will remain crucial.

So while we still don’t know yet what we can say about 2008, I can confidently announce this: See you in 2012.

Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum. He helped to form ScienceDebate2008 but does not speak for the organization.