These dismaying facts present a fundamental challenge to our nation's future, one that our next president must have a plan for overcoming.
And, in fact, it's not going too far to say that science in its broadest sense -- by which we mean scientific thinking -- is crucial in every area of policymaking. Science requires a willingness to reject conclusions once they're shown to be in error, and it demands that all the data be considered, not just that which agrees with a priori opinions. A president capable of assessing scientific issues by weighing competing positions, and evaluating the evidence supporting them, could be expected to carry the same mode of reasoning over into other policy arenas where it's equally crucial.
That's why we need to hear from all of the candidates about where they stand on specific science-related issues, on U.S. competitiveness and, finally, on the broad role of science in the policymaking process. Our next president needn't be a memorizer of facts, but he or she most definitely should understand how to critically analyze data and should embrace a broad empiricism in national and world affairs.
Already we've seen science form the basis of some of the thorniest public policy issues in recent history, from the fate of Terri Schiavo to the fate of evolution in schools and the fate of the Earth. A presidential debate on science would help voters determine who among the candidates is up to the task of dealing with whatever comes next.
