Gibberish

Science Debate & Presidential Campaigns

A science debate among presidential candidates (an effort called by many leading scientists and seemed to have become likely at some point) has diminished amid the overwhelming finance crisis we are going through. But as long as America is a democratic country, elections will continue even this one has ended, and the topic of science debate and presidential campaign is not going to become obsolete.

Partly responding to several articles published on Science and Nature about the presidential science debate and partly to fulfill a requirement of a qualitative method course, I have conducted three open-ended interviews of political activists (including both Democrat and Republican).

I want to hear outside of the science community what common people say about such a debate. I want to find out why S&T issues are not a central theme of presidential campaigns. What are the implications for the scientist community? Have we done enough? And what needs to and can be done?

Despite the limitations of the small number of cases, some pieces of evidence have emerged regarding why S&T issues are not a central theme to presidential campaigns that support two hypotheses: 1) For an issue to be central to the presidential campaigns, it either echoes strong beliefs/values of the general public or is linked directly to their interests/benefits or is something that the public likes to hear, and 2) S&T issues are not a central theme to the campaigns because the public in general has low interest in and understanding of science.

In addition, the interviews have generated some insights into what can/needs to be done for S&T issues to play a more important role in the future presidential campaign, particularly by the science community.

The two hypotheses tested suggest that for S&T issues to become central and play a more important role in the presidential election, two things are essential: (i) in the short term, we need to help the public see the connections between S&T and other issues and the linkages with their direct interests/benefits, which demands well developed and elaborated information on S&T issues, and calls for innovative and interesting methods of education, and (ii) in the long run, we need to increase the public's interest and understanding about S&T, which is a difficult and slow process, and better begins with educating young generations.

The scientist community has a moral responsibility for educating the general public to increase their understanding of science. If scientists do not do this job, who else would?

Unfortunately, the answers to the question of "Do you think the scientist community is isolated from the public, and they do not try (or try enough) to reach out to the public?" suggest that the scientist community hasn't done a good job. In one respondent's view, scientists "communicate what they do in their own circles." In another respondent's mind, the image of a scientist is that of "spending tremendous amount of time in research labs and books." He said, "They don't interact with general public as much. I don't think the public ignore them. That's just what they do, and their passion is. They rather like doing it than going out socializing."

Then how can the scientist community do a better job? Two tools are potentially powerful that can be used by scientists to meet the challenges of educating the general public: Internet and social networks. The victory of Obama has fully demonstrated the power of these tools in political campaigns.

Internet has a great potential for it is suitable for full elaborations, can be fun, and is effective particularly for young people. It can provide unlimited information source that will overcome the poor coverage of S&T by other commercial media (usually regarded as the major reason for low public interest in S&T). And scientists are good at it. It is an undeniable fact (also confirmed by the interviews) that people have become more and more relying Internet for obtaining information, particularly younger generations. More scientific websites need to be created targeting at the general public so when users randomly browse online, they can easily run into these websites. If the contents are fun and easy to be understood by laymen, they will attract the attention of casual web surfers. The interviews reveal that not many good science websites for the general public are available yet.

Social networks can be powerful because of its spillover effects, and because each scientist is in multiple social networks: family, friends, neighborhood, community, local schools, social organizations etc. Many of us are aware of the six degrees of separation and the notion of small world. Network theories have also showed that it does not take too many key nodes to spread a message fast across social networks. The answers to a set of questions about whether scientists at home, friend gathering, church meeting, neighborhoods, local communities, and social organizations have discussed science related issues with other people in the interviews have revealed that the huge potential of social networks in educating the general public is far from being fully utilized, and there is much the scientist community can do to explore its great potential.

In an editorial article on the journal of Science, Leshner (2008) has called scientists to take up "global" science advocacy, which means to take a global issue and make it meaningful to society at local levels. Equipped with two great tools, keeping "global" science advocacy in mind, scientists can make a significant difference in helping increase general public's interest in and understanding of S&T, and in making S&T issues more important in the future presidential campaigns.

Two more things are worth mentioning. Regarding the science debate, although none of the three respondents was aware of it before, all of them agreed that such a debate is important for the future of the America once they were told about it. But, two of them predicted that it would not happen. One respondent has offered an insightful opinion. He said, "The candidates and their staff members will calculate how they are going to communicate to maximum number of people in effective ways. I think the candidates and their staff members would decide there would not be really a large segment of the public that would listen to these presentations. But if political leaders want to communicate most effectively to large segments of the public, you got to have those S&T discussions framed in such a way as to appeal to the public. So rather than building it as discussing S&T, it is better to have two or three debates or panel discussions focusing on health care and S&T, defense and S&T, or environment and S&T so that the public would more easily understand what's the purpose of the programs are all about." These remarks remind us that for a science debate to happen and have a real impact we must consider the level of the public's interest and understanding about S&T.

Regarding the importance of stands on issues in determining voters' choices, among twenty three interviews (conducted by other students), many respondents have suggested that a candidate's stands on issues are actually not that important. One respondent's answer is revealing, he said, "I think well educated voters pay a lot more attention to stands on issues. If voters are asked, where do they stand on Health care? The huge majority of the American pubic would have no well informed answer. So I think among people with less education, the personalities and the image of the candidate that is communicated by mass media, those factors are more important than positions on issues except, for instance, the fact that McCain on Iraq war, there is a clear cut difference. But I think other than very few issues like that where there is a clear difference between the two parties, the issues maybe to most Americans are less in their heads, less prominent to them, than their assessment of the personality and qualifications, you might say, qualifications in a very loose sense of the candidates . You know all too many Americans voted for George Bush because they could feel he is the kind of guy he can sit have a beer with. Well, absolutely no importance what so ever. But to lots of less educated Americans that kind of impression of whether a guy is a good guy becomes more important than where this person is going to take the country. Had they known where George Bush was going to take the country, I think, he would never have had won." Another respondent's answer is more straightforward, "I was really excited to get to work (as a campaign worker) because I loved Obama. I've liked him since his speech at the DNC in 2004."

Some people may, thus, draw the conclusion that since the public does not care about issues anyway, there is no point to promote S&T issues in the presidential campaign. However, I would argue the opposite. Exactly because people do not pay attention to issues, the need to promote science is greater. It is very risky for the country in the long run if the president is elected only because the image carried by the media is nice and people like that image. As Albert (2008) has argued in an editorial article on Science, scientific habit of mind (including a skeptical attitude and a strong desire of logic and evidence) is important for the public and society to make right political decisions. Science education will help people develop such a mind, and enable the pubic to better understand other issues as well and be more aware of issues. And the scientist community has a significant role to play in this and a long way to go.

Articles about the science debate

Albert, B. 2008. Considering Science Education, Science 319:1589

Kennedy, D. 2008. The Real Debate, Science 319: 548

Kirshenbaum S. R. et al. 2008. Science and the Candidates, Science 320:182

Leshner, A. I. 2008. "Global" Science Advocacy, Science 319, 877

Mervis, J. 2008. Science and the Next U.S. President, Science 319:22

Science Debate 2008. www.sciencedebate2008.com

Anonymous, 2008. Best Tests for Candidates, Nature 451(7179): 605