Speaking of Science

Science debate sparks, well, debate among scholars

Shawn Otto and the organizers of Science Debate 2008 hope to bring the leading presidential candidates together for discourse on science policy. Despite canceling a debate planned for tomorrow in Philadelphia, the organizers remain prepared to host the unprecedented event.

“We still don’t have a response, but [we] are hopeful,” Otto said. “The ball is in the candidates’ court now.”

Undeterred, organizers have rescheduled the forum for one of three dates in May, ahead of the Oregon primaries. The event would be hosted by Portland State University and be broadcast nationwide on PBS.

UW President Mark Emmert was among the first to sign his name to a still growing list of public supporters.

“I thought it was a brilliant idea,” Emmert said. “When you look at big policy problems facing the United States and the world, science is not the only answer, but a critical part of the answer.”

Emmert and Otto both noted that much of the United States’ economic success in the 20th century was linked to scientific advances. Notwithstanding its importance, Emmert said science is a gigantic issue rarely talked about.

“If you asked me today the three major candidates’ position on science policy, I’d have to say I have no idea … because they haven’t told us,” Emmert said.

While there exists a large amount of support from Emmert, other university presidents, Nobel laureates, business leaders, academics, political observers, scientists and ordinary citizens have raised concerns over featuring science in a debate; they fear that putting science at the forefront of political debate could do more harm than good.

Leah Ceccarelli, a UW professor of communications, said that opposition from within the ranks of scientists might originate from different purposes and arguments used by technical and public spheres. Her research focuses on public discourse of science and its rhetoric.

“When you study debate and arguments, scholars often invoke stasis theory,” Ceccarelli said. “It’s a way of talking about the stages an argument goes through.”

Discussion among scientists is largely confined to the so-called conjectural stasis, focusing on questions of existence and fact. Arguments in the public sphere tend to be in another realm known as the procedural stasis, where prescriptive answers to questions regarding action are considered.

“Scientists might worry that we’ll bring into dispute conjectural issues via procedural ones,” Ceccarelli said. “Some of the push back could be concern that we’ll debate things that aren’t controversy.”

Framing a presidential debate around science isn’t easy. Ceccarelli warned of manufactured controversy in a recent essay, but said it is unwise to relinquish the stage to anti-science advocates. Emmert acknowledged the likelihood that portions of the public would perceive the debate as over their heads. Nevertheless, he said the debate would increase awareness of the role of science in our lives and perhaps force the candidates to frame policy.

Science is an integral part of our daily lives. Though its details may be technical and abstruse to some, its implications are common and accessible. The curiosity and sense of wonder that underlie science are the same impetuses that resonate with anyone who takes a moment to consider the inner workings of a computer or the falling of rain.

Reflecting on the compassion forum held earlier this week in Pennsylvania, Otto noted another sort of connection that evangelical ministers had made through their questioning of the Democratic candidates.

“Science issues are moral issues,” Otto said. “It is critical that we engage science policy as part of strong leadership.”

[Reach columnist Brian Smoliak at news@thedaily.washington.edu.]