The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) sent me some cool prizes to share with you. Be among the first five people to post a comment at http://www.engineeringchallenges.org and consider yourself the new owner of a calculator/pen (left) , illuminating pen, sharp looking duffle bag, pedometer or a Science Cheerleader t-shirt.

Oh, be sure to include this in your comment: “I saw this on Science Cheerleader.”

The NAE,  with support from the National Science Foundation, announced the grandest engineering challenges facing us. These “Challenges” present an exciting forecast wrapped in a blanket of harsh, but by no means defeating, reality. Recently, I attended an event at the NAE’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.,  moderated by former ABC and CNN anchor and current PBS host Aaron Brown. Pix below.  Representatives from both the McCain and Obama campaigns were there to address how government can help turned these Grand Challenges into Grand Achievements.

Here’s a brief description of one of the Engineering Challenges:   As loyal readers know, I did not exactly ace every high school science exam.  I had more important critical issues on my mind: pollute the environment with the giant red or blue can of Final Net Hairspray? What to wear for Hands Across America?! And do I dare set a trend by wearing fringe? (I tried. I failed.) Those are my excuses.

But researchers have provided a far more scientific pardon. In part, I can blame the education system.

What does Cap and Trade mean? Where do the candidates say they stand on this particular issue and how do their words compare to their voting histories?

Any mom who used bingo chips to barter babysitting hours will understand this analogy immediately. Take a group of three moms. Give each, say 10 bingo chips. One chip = one hour of babysitting. If Dana asks Joanne to watch her boys for two hours, she must give Joanne two chips. Joanne can ask Tania to watch her girls for one hour but she will lose a chip to Tania.
Need more chips? Sacrifice some nights out, offer to watch some kids and rebuild your chip reserve
Of course, there are some differences between the babysitting chip method and the cap and trade system:
1) In general, when political wonks refer to Cap and Trade they are not organizing babysitting schedules. They are most likely talking about an approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.

2) Babysitting chips cannot be bought and sold (despite my numerous attempts to do so). Within a cap and trade system, companies are given a limit–capped–on how much they can pollute the environment. Let’s say they are given a limit of 25. That’s 25 points or credits (or chips) a company can use. They are licensed accordingly. They will not be given more chips by the government. As they start to near their cap, they must buy credits (chips) from other companies who have an excess of credits. This is the “trade” part. Trading money for credits. How would a company have an excess of credits? By lowering their pollution output.  In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

Both candidates are in favor of a Cap and Trade policy. Read on.

This morning–as part of its two-week investigative report comparing the candidates’ answers to 14 Science Debate questions to their voting history–Popular Science takes a look at Climate Change. (Yesterday, the topic was Innovation.) Both candidates agree that global warming poses a serious threat and needs to be tackled immediately with carbon emission reduction. Both candidates want to institute a cap and trade system to make carbon reduction market friendly. But do they have the record to back it up?

In short: the answer is yes. Read the brief, but important, details here.

Tomorrow, PopSci will take a shot at Energy.

Today, Popular Science magazine announced a two-week investigative report comparing McCain and Obama’s answers to 14 Science Debate questions to the senator’s voting records “to see if their history matched up with their promises for the future.”

The report,  titled “The Record Behind the Words: Unpacking ScienceDebate2008,” opens with issue number one: Innovation. The Science Debate question posed to the candidate was this: “What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?”

How did their answers stack up to their voting histories? Read the brief details here. 

Hint: Popular Science reports, “Not surprisingly, the candidates took the not-so-bold stance of being for innovation. The first bunch of ScienceDebate answers seem well supported by the candidates’ legislative histories. Come back tomorrow when we examine their answers regarding climate change.“ 

Science Cheerleader’s Simple Summary:  Obama is for increasing funds for basic research and education. McCain also supports greater funding for education but also wants to put a man on the moon…and Mars.
Pick me! Pick me! 

Seriously, come back tomorrow. The comparison between the candidates’ answers promises to be more dramatic.

Delighted to have been invited to speak at this important event. Kindly join in the discussion, in person or online.

From Shawn Otto, CEO of ScienceDebate2008.com:

“The great press continues – we are affecting the presidential discussion. But now we need to take this conversation to a new level. Please tell friends, colleagues and associates interested in the future of America to join us in Minnesota on October 20-21st for a very exciting national discussion at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy. Register now – space is limited.

Keynotes
Nobel laureate Peter Agre
Science broadcaster Ira Flatow

Topics
Our discussions will cover Innovation and the economy, Science and the Elections, STEM and the education crisis in America, Energy Security & Sustainability – what’s missing from the debate, and Rekindling America’s love affair with Science. Visit www.innovation2008.com for more details. We will also have some very special high-tech art presentations.”
Some of our confirmed speakers and panelists:

Some of our confirmed speakers and panelists:

•    Andrew Fire, Nobel laureate and Professor of Pathology and Genetics, Stanford University
•    Bill Bates, Vice President of the Council on Competitiveness
•    Darlene Cavalier, ScienceCheerleader.com
•    Kei Koizumi, Director, R&D Budget & Policy, American Assn for the Advancement of Science
•    Lawrence Krauss, astrophysicist, science policy speaker, and popular author
•    Chris Mooney, Washington Correspondent for Seed and popular author
•    Jan Morrison – Executive Director; TIES Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM
•    Michael T. Osterholm, Director, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP)
•    Shawn Lawrence Otto, screenwriter and CEO, Science Debate 2008
•    Eugenie Scott, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education
•    Alice Seagren, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Education
•    Susan Singer – Carlton College; Board on Science Education of the National Academies
•    Manil Suri, Professor of Mathematics & Statistics, University of Maryland, Baltimore and popular author
•    Susan  Wood, former FDA Director of Women’s Health and Research Professor, GWU
•    Mary Woolley,  President of Research!America,

and many more, along with a few very special surprises.

The Obama and McCain campaigns have been invited.

“Clearly, the fundamental drivers of the U.S. economy need attention,” said Shawn Lawrence Otto, CEO of Science Debate 2008, cosponsor of the event.  “Innovation in science and technology has driven half of America’s economic growth since WWII, but the global landscape is changing.  We need to forge a new path to remain a first rate economy.”   Otto said national experts will meet at the conference to explore strategies the United States needs to take to retain and renew its global leadership in innovation into the future.  “Most of the major challenges facing the U.S. revolve around 14 key questions of science and technology.”

Happy Friday! A friend, who happens to be two-time women’s National Chess Champ Jennifer Shahade, just launched this fictional (very clever) online chess game between McCain and Obama.
Jennifer writes:

September Surprise! Instead of tonight’s scheduled debate, Barack Obama and John McCain will face off in a chess game. And what a match up it will be!

Regardless of your political stance, I think you’ll get a kick out of it.

Why am I writing about this? Well, as it turns out, Jennifer’s not the only Ms. Smarty Pants in her family. Her mom, a chemistry professor at Drexel University, founded  Science-in-Motion. “SIM, for short, brings top of the line science equipment to Philadelphia public schools that can’t afford it,” Jennifer writes on her blog . “The goal of SIM is to get kids excited about science. It works: While waiting for the presentation start, most of the kids were texting or zoning out, but by the end everyone was totally fixated on the show.”

If you’d like to learn more, kindly contact SIM.

Cheers!

Where are all my fellow “non-scientist-average-citizens from the general public?”

McCain and Obama have answered the 14 science questions and we have a chance to grade them on their responses. The campaigns, the media and the organizers of ScienceDebate2008.com want to know what YOU think of the candidates’ answers. It’s as easy as pie to grade their answers from A-F.

I have a hunch (no imperical data to prove this) that scientists, waiting a lifetime for this opportunity, have been flooding the internet with their grades. All well and good but the Science Debate team (of which I am part) is doing this on behalf of the public, not the scientists.

When you have a few minutes, go here  to read the questions and answers, then grade them. Your opinion matters.

(From the ScienceDebate2008.com team.)

From the New York Times to the LA Times and around the world Obama’s and McCain’s answers to the 14 top science questions are getting great coverage, but one question remains: Who will be the best president for America in a science-dominated world?

Here’s your chance to grade McCain and Obama on their answers – and tell the world why!

Log on to www.sciencedebate2008.com/vote to grade them A-F on their answers and comment on why they deserve that grade. 

Weigh in with your vote now!

-The Team at ScienceDebate2008.com

For the first time in recorded history, the Presidential candidates have gone on record with their views on a broad array of critical science policy issues: Stem Cells, Water, Energy, Climate Change, Innovation, Science Education, Genetic Engineering and more.

For months, the Science Debate team has been pushing for this to happen. I am part of that team. (I think they added me because they needed a minority on the team–in this case, minority means “non genius.”) Thanks to all of you who jumped on board and demanded answers from the candidates, particularly in response to this quirky youtube mock debate.
And, kudos to McCain, Obama and their campaigns, for taking a bold step forward.

Here are the questions and answers.

As anticipated, major media outlets are reporting on this development. Here’s a nice, distilled interpretation of the candidates’ answers, from The New York Times.

What are your initial thoughts?

Next challenge: Let’s ask Jim Lehrer (moderator of the upcoming, September 26th, presidential debate in Mississippi) to toss out a couple of these 14 questions during the televised debate! We can start planting the seed, here. Free Science Cheerleader T-shirt for the first five people who move on this!

Cheers!

From  New Scientist Magazine: The U.S. Leads the World. 40% of global R&D expenditure. 70% of Nobel prizewinners and 75% of world’s top 40 universities by quality of education and research.

All great stuff. But why should we care about the next President’s vision for science in the U.S.?  

New Scientist article, “Who will end the war on science,” sums it up. “The prosperity and security of the US is closely tied to its role as a science and technology leader. At the same time, decisions made by the federal government on issues such as climate change, public health and basic research clearly reverberate far beyond the nation’s borders.” Read the full article here. You’ll be glad you did. Let me know what you think!

Thanks, Neil, for sending in the following comment re: McCain’s VP choice. Hmmm. You make some excellent (and courageous) points. What do the rest of you think about science in this election?

Darlene,