Science Cheerleader

Some of you have asked to see the video of the Two Cultures event at the NY Academy of Sciences (I was a panelist for the Science and Policy discussion). Two main architects of this event were Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, authors of Unscientific America, a book on the crisis of scientific illiteracy. Speaking of which, see how YOU stack up against others who’ve taken this brief, basic science literacy quiz.

Here’s a note from Shawn Otto, CEO of Science Debate, and a link to the videos.

On May 9, 2009 we co-organized and co-hosted a conference with our friends at the New York Academy of Sciences marking the 50th anniversary of C.P. Snow’s “Two Cultures” lecture.   Snow famously complained of a “gulf of mutual incomprehension between science and the humanities.”

That gulf now exists between science and policymaking, and in an age when the world’s greatest challenges revolve around science and engineering, it must be overcome.  This is the focus of our work at Science Debate.

The conference proceedings, including video of the presentations, are now up at the New York Academy of Sciences website.  We hope you can join us online as we explore issues and strategies, with keynote addresses by: (more…)

From Shawn Otto, CEO of ScienceDebate.org (an initiative near and dear to my heart):

Barack Obama pledged to Science Debate that he would “restore the science integrity of government and restore transparency of decision-making…”

He has referred to this pledge several times since, most recently in his speech to the National Academies of Science.  On March 9, the president formally asked the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to make recommendations on how the executive branch can meet this pledge.

The OSTP has opened a public comment period regarding this directive, giving you the opportunity to share your thoughts on what the next steps should be.  Comments are due by Wednesday, May 13.

The OSTP is looking for recommendations on the six issues President Obama identified in his memo:

1. hiring and keeping qualified scientists
2. defining new policies to ensure integrity
3. using “well-established scientific processes” like peer review
4. disclosing scientific findings
5. ensuring that principles of scientific integrity are being adhered to
6. adopting additional policies like whistleblower protections

The OSTP is accepting comments via email and through their blog, here.

Many organizations in Washington will be giving their opinions of what the OSTP plan should entail.  We believe it is important for scientists and other science supporters to be included in that process, and for you to indicate to the White House how science and scientific integrity affect your work, your families, and your communities.

If you’re interested in more background information, visit the scientific integrity site of our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists here.

If you like our work, please contribute - we are all volunteer, and individually funded.

Thanks — and we hope to see you this weekend in New York!

-The team at ScienceDebate.Org

(Me again: Does anyone else wonder if/when Congress will thaw to the idea of public participation?)

I’ll be speaking at the NY Academy of Sciences on Saturday, May 9th. Let me know if you’re planning to attend!

ScienceDebate.Org is cosponsoring the Two Cultures conference at the New York Academy of Sciences!  Join Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Matthew Chapman, Lawrence Krauss, Darlene Cavalier, Shawn Otto, Ira Flatow, Francesca Grifo, Paula Apsell, Andrew Revkin, Kevin Finneran, Dean Kamen, John Porter, E.O. Wilson, Kenneth Miller, and many more for an historic discussion marking the 50th anniversary of C.P. Snow’s famous address.

Come meet me in NYC on May 9th at the NY Academy of Sciences. I’m one of the speakers at the Two Cultures event, described below by Shawn Otto, CEO of ScienceDebate.org:

We live in a time when more scientists are being trained than ever before, with nearly 30,000 science PhDs awarded in 2006. Yet scientists find themselves frustrated by inaccurate media coverage, poor science education, public science illiteracy, a resurgence of anti-evolutionism, and challenges to scientific expertise on issues like climate change.

In his seminal lecture, “The Two Cultures,” delivered on May 7, 1959, the British novelist, physicist, and government science adviser C.P. Snow famously decried a “gulf of mutual incomprehension between science and the humanities.” For Snow, this rift was “a sheer loss to us all.”

In an age when the world’s greatest challenges revolve around questions of science and technology, in a world governed by policymakers and a public sometimes unaware of science’s role in dealing with those challenges, this rift can undermine political will and the ability to solve them.  This rift is the focus of our work at Science Debate.

On May 9, 2009 visionaries, scientists, authors, and the media will join together to explore the persistence of the “two cultures” gap and how it can be overcome.

Don’t miss this unique and important event, featuring keynote addresses by Pulitzer Prize winner E.O. Wilson, former Congressman John Porter, and Segway inventor and entrepreneur Dean Kamen, and panelists including Matthew Chapman, Darlene Cavalier, Ann Druyan, Ira Flatow, Lawrence Krauss, Kenneth Miller, Shawn Otto, Stuart Pimm, Corey Powell, Andrew Revkin, and many others, cosponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences, Science & The City, the Science Communication Consortium, ScienceDebate.Org, and our media sponsor, Discover Magazine.  The moderators include Science Debate’s Chris Mooney & Sheril Kirshenbaum, co-authors of the forthcoming book Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.

Had some terrific meetings in D.C. on Monday. Then I got slammed with a 24-hour virus (courtesy of my kids). Met the CEO of Discover, Henry Donahue, for coffee. (SO nice and very smart).

 Then met with Newt Gingrich and Rita Colwell to brainstorm tactics on behalf of the Science Debate team. (Talk about brain power–them, not me). Picture on left was taken in the late 90s when I met Newt through the Discover Technology Awards (a program I directed back when Disney owned Discover).

 Then, met with a dynamic and eclectic group interested in reopening the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Yes, I realize the irony (Newt shut down the Office of Tech Assessment as part of the Contract with America in 1995.) Read the summary notes and consider joining our cause here.

Here’s what I recently sent to the Facebook team (may sound Greek without the history and context you will find on the Facebook page: “hey, hey Open the OTA with citizen input!”:
(more…)

Obama: ” It is time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and work to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology.”

Science bloggers are thrilled, the Science Debate team is giddy, a few folks are cautiously optimistic.
I’m very pleased. In general, Obama’s appointments signal a new era in science policy–transparency and inclusiveness being high on the list. Traditional reservations about Democrats over-investing in a too-broad-a-range of basic research are tempered simply because there’s not much money to go around these days. Most of Obama’s appointments were early supporters of the Science Debate (see below) and ardent advocates of engaging the public in science and science policy discussions.  

Here’s Obama, making the announcements:

Remarks from Shawn Otto, CEO of Science Debate 2008:

In addition to Steven Chu, John Holdren, and Jane Lubchenco, we would like to congratulate Science Debate 2008 supporters Harold Varmus and Eric Lander on being named co-chars of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.  A 1989 Nobel laureate in medicine, Dr Varmus is former director of NIH and president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and has been one of our closest and strongest advocates throughout the last year – we are very pleased and proud of his appointment.  Also an early supporter of Science debate 2008, Dr Lander is the Director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; the first author of the Human Genome Project, and one of TIME’s 100 most influential people of our time (2004).
America was founded by scientist-statesmen like Jefferson and Franklin. It has always been an important part of our identity and success as a nation. We are hopeful that with these appointments, the American destiny with science can be reengaged to tackle our most pressing challenges as a nation, nearly all of which revolve around questions of science and technology. Now, the next step for the new administration will be successfully communicating this agenda to the American public, and reengaging the American media on these questions which are so critical to our ongoing success as a nation.

Thank you, as always, for supporting our shared effort to encourage this kind of leadership in the American political process. You are are critical part of…

-The team at ScienceDebate2008.com

And the web site rose into the top 1/4 of 1% of most visited sites on the internet. 

In a post election letter to nearly 40,000 supporters of elevating science in the elections, Science Debate CEO Shawn Otto highlighted several pivotal successes and addressed the need for further action. I intended to sum them up and report on them here but it’s nearly impossible to improve upon Shawn’s letter.  Read his concise and compelling letter.

The only bit of new news I can add, not included in Shawn’s letter,  is this: Germany, the Netherlands and South Africa are taking the Science Debate international.

Want to help, literally, change the world? Then join us!

“Us” = The six founders of Science Debate 2008: Matthew Chapman, Austin Dacey, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Lawrence Krauss, Chris Mooney, and Shawn Lawrence Otto.  They were later joined by team members Darlene Cavalier and Erik Beeler.  Science Debate 2008’s database and email communication infrastructure is made possible with pro-bono support from The DataBank, which we gratefully acknowledge.

I’m back from Minneapolis where I had the pleasure of being a presenter at Innovation 2008, the brainchild of Science Debate 2008 and the University of Minnesota.

Here’s a post I wrote for Discover Magazine.com

Or, click the links below and watch the webcast at your leisure.  As Science Debate CEO Shawn Otto put it “Whether you’re faculty, student, researcher, blogger, or concerned citizen there’s something you’re going to value in these remarkable and educational sessions.  Get Smart!”

SESSIONS (90 min each)
1. Innovation – Some of America’s leading science policy experts discuss the current challenges and opportunities
2. Education – Evolution versus creationism is just one snippet of the politics of renewing STEM in America
3. Health – A deeply spirited and stimulating discussion of public health, pandemics, and science policy
4. News & Culture – A sizzling hot look at the problems we uncovered in American science policy reporting  (this is where you will find my presentation)
5. Energy – What’s missing from the current energy debate?  A look at sustainability issues.
6. Peter Agre on the human side of science – A Nobel laureate’s inspirational talk on crisis and innovation
7. Ira Flatow on science in America today – An outstanding discussion – coming soon!

Cheers!

I ripped this entire post off from Sheril Kirshenbaum at The Intersection.com. (What can I say? She beat me to the punch. I was a speaker at the Innovation 2008 event, referenced below, and I’ll be right back with highlights from those juicy discussions!)

When Science And Politics Collide
Posted on: October 22, 2008 10:26 AM, by the interSeCtion

About a year ago, we had an idea to make science more prominent on the campaign trail this election cycle: ScienceDebate2008 was born.

It wasn’t long before a lot of folks took notice and the initiative grew rapidly. Eventually, the presidential candidates weighed in.

[left to right: Darlene Cavalier, Shawn Lawrence Otto, Matthew Chapman, Lawrence Krauss, Chris Mooney, Erik Beeler, Sheril Kirshenbaum]

This week, ScienceDebate2008 co-hosted Innovation 2008 with the Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota–a conference bringing together academics, policy makers, business leaders, scientists, educators, artists, students, and the public to discuss solutions to the major challenges facing the United States revolving around science and technology policy. It was an excellent forum inspiring all sorts of ideas and unique collaborative efforts. The 2008 election may be weeks away, but for ScienceDebate this is only the beginning...

Thanks, Sheril!

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. (more…)