Science Debate 2008: pushing scientific research to the forefront

Science Debate 2008, a coalition of scientists, journalists, and concerned citizens, has formed an initiative to promote scientific research in the determination of public policy in the United States. It's an excellent forum for voicing opinions and concerns and for hearing the positions of politicians regarding policies for which science can or should play a key role.

As an example, here are portions of the responses from the U.S. presidential candidates to a question on ocean health, submitted by Science Debate 2008 (#9 of 14 questions of a scientific nature were submitted):

McCain: Ocean health and policy requires better management focus; however, we also need a better scientific understanding of the oceans. In no area is this truer than in obtaining a better understanding of the interaction of climate change and the oceans . . . Ocean science and engineering deserves greater attention and focus. (Click here to read entire response.)

Obama: The oceans are a global resource and a global responsibility for which the U.S. can and should take a more active role. I will work actively to ensure that the U.S. ratifies the Law of the Sea Convention - an agreement supported by more than 150 countries that will protect our economic and security interests while providing an important international collaboration to protect the oceans and its resources. (Click here to read entire response.)

All sounds very nice but, as the candidates are fond of saying, they have to "walk the talk." Personally, I have found that there is a considerable amount of scientific data regarding a host of ecological, environmental, and marine issues that unfortunately gets buried in the academic world and does not get sufficiently communicated to the general public in easily understandable terms - issues, implications and solutions. The more the public is "in the know" - the more pressure these constituents can put on their political leaders.

Decision 2008: The conventions are over; now comes the hard part

I don't wax political too often, but as we enter the last 8 weeks of our U.S. presidential election, I'll throw in my two cents worth. No, I won't tell you my choice; my opinion is my vote and you're smart enough to make your own call. Just be sure to get the facts.

Having finished their convention speeches, right now both candidates are talking a similar game: change. And when it comes to the environment, they're both throwing out pretty much the same promises. So, you're going to have to do some homework. We have a lot of important national issues to address, but in the big picture (something politicians are notoriously unable to deal with), Nature - the environment, conservation, climate change - will trump them all.

Former Vice President Al Gore has chosen to focus his efforts towards environmental issues, specifically global warming. Okay, cynics, it has brought him fame and some fortune, but he does realize that in the end, environmental issues make all other problems look like small potatoes.

So think hard about your choices: Who can bring together the people in a common purpose regarding the environment? Who can move the forces of politics and commerce in the right direction? Who is determined to set us on a new course beyond our 100-year old fossil fuel industrial model?

After all the cheers, balloons and confetti have subsided, where will we be? What happens in the next 4 to 8 years can have a lasting impact for decades or longer. Think hard. It's only the planet's future at stake.