On the current episode of the SGU (Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe), our guest, Lawrence Krauss, mentioned that he is involved with an effort to have the presidential candidates for 2008 (in the general election, not the primaries) engage in a debate focusing on the many scientific issues that face Americans and with which our next president will have to contend. The effort is called Science Debate 2008.

This is a wonderful idea. We have mentioned this casually on our podcast in the past so I am glad that prominent scientists have banded together to spearhead this effort. You too can join the effort by signing up on the website. When each of the major parties has picked their nominee we will also need huge public pressure to make a science debate happen.

In fact, it’s such a good idea that we should have pushed for such a debate during the primary elections. During this earlier phase of the presidential run there are many more debates, and therefore it would have been easier to slip in another debate on science issues. During the general election typically there are 2-3 debates that are highly crafted and negotiated by both sides. It will be more difficult to add an extra debate on scientific issues, as important as that would be. This is why it is going to take a huge effort to make this happen.

But even if the debate does not take place in 2008 the important thing is that the concept of having a presidential debated dedicated to science topics is now out there. Regardless of what happens in 2008 the effort should begin almost immediately to organize a series of debates in the 2012 election, both primary and general. This should become a fixture of American politics. The organization that comes into being for the 2008 science debate should evolve into a body that presides over such debates throughout American politics. While I believe such an organization, to be most effective, must remain scrupulously politically neutral, it can also take on tasks such as monitoring the role of science in government.

In fact the Science Debate 2008 effort is largely a response to the fact that, while the issues faced by the administration and congress are increasingly embedded in science – global warming, stem cell research, NASA space science, health care, energy independence, cyber terrorism, biowarfare, teaching creationism in science classrooms, etc. – government has tended to divest itself of its scientific advisers. While science is becoming increasingly important our leaders are acting as if it is becoming less so.

Of course, I love science in and of itself. Ideas in science are often beautiful and satisfying regardless of their practical application. But the real strength of science is that it works, it gives us useful and practical information about our world. We ignore the findings of science at our own peril. Further, the institutions of science survive and thrive on the good will of the public. Without public support, which extends to the support of our elected officials, science will not have the resources to function. And further, without proper respect for the institutions of science, the findings of science will gather dust on bookshelves or never leave the ivory towers in which they are discussed. And that would be a tragic loss for all of humanity. Science is our best tool, but we have to use it.

So I wholeheartedly applaud the Science Debate 2008 effort, and in fact would expand it to the broader effort of increasing the role of science in our society and in our politics. A science debate should be a regular fixture in any important election. The public should demand scientific literacy from our elected officials. Imagine that.