F ROM THE EDITOR
CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20036 (202) 872-4600 or (800) 227-5558 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Rudy M. Baum DEPUTY EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: A. Maureen Rouhi MANAGING EDITOR: Ivan Amato DESIGN DIRECTOR: Nathan Becker SENIOR ART DIRECTOR: Robin L. Braverman SENIOR DESIGNER: Yang H. Ku STAFF ARTIST: Monica C. Gilbert SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Lois R. Ember NEWS EDITOR: William G. Schulz EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Michael Heylin SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: Marvel A. Wills ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Marilyn Caracciolo
BUSINESS Michael McCoy, Assistant Managing Editor (732) 906-8300. Lisa M. Jarvis (Associate Editor), Rick Mullin (Senior Editor), Marc S. Reisch (Senior Correspondent), Alexander H. Tullo (Senior Editor), Rachel Eskenazi (Administrative Assistant). HONG KONG: 852 2984 9072. Jean-François Tremblay (Senior Correspondent). HOUSTON: (281) 486-3900. Ann M. Thayer (Senior Correspondent). LONDON: 44 20 8870 6884. Patricia L. Short (Senior Correspondent). WASHINGTON: (202) 872-4406. Melody Voith (Senior Editor) NORTHEAST:
GOVERNMENT & POLICY Susan R. Morrissey, Assistant Managing Editor David J. Hanson (Senior Correspondent), Glenn Hess (Senior Editor), Bette Hileman (Senior Editor), Cheryl Hogue (Senior Editor), Jeffrey W. Johnson (Senior Editor) SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY/EDUCATION (617) 395-4163. Amanda T. Yarnell, Assistant Managing Editor. WASHINGTON: (202) 8726216. Stuart A. Borman (Deputy Assistant Managing Editor), Celia Henry Arnaud (Senior Editor), Carmen Drahl (Assistant Editor), Bethany Halford (Associate Editor), Stephen K. Ritter (Senior Editor), Sophie L. Rovner (Senior Editor). BERLIN: 49 30 2123 3740. Sarah Everts (Associate Editor). CHICAGO: (847) 6791156. Mitch Jacoby (Senior Editor). WEST COAST: (925) 485-1034. Jyllian Kemsley (Associate Editor), (510) 991-6492. Rachel A. Petkewich (Associate Editor), (510) 868-0502. Elizabeth K. Wilson (Senior Editor) BOSTON:
ACS NEWS & SPECIAL FEATURES Linda Raber, Assistant Managing Editor Susan J. Ainsworth (Senior Editor), Corinne A. Marasco (Senior Editor), Linda Wang (Associate Editor) EDITING & PRODUCTION Robin M. Giroux, Assistant Managing Editor, Alicia J. Chambers (Assistant Editor), Arlene GoldbergGist (Senior Editor), Faith Hayden (Assistant Editor), Kenneth J. Moore (Assistant Editor), Tonia E. Moore (Assistant Editor), Kimberly R. Twambly (Assistant Editor), Lauren K. Wolf (Assistant Editor) C&EN ONLINE Rachel Sheremeta Pepling, Editor Tchad K. Blair (Visual Designer), Luis A. Carrillo (Production Manager), William B. Shepherd (Manager, Online Recruitment), Noah Shussett (Associate Web Content Manager) PRODUCTION & IMAGING Renee L. Zerby, Lead Digital Production Specialist Krystal E. King (Senior Digital Production Associate) SALES & MARKETING Elise Swinehart, Assistant Director Elaine Facciolli Jarrett (Marketing Manager) ADVISORY BOARD: Magid Abou-Gharbia, Kim Baldridge, David N. Beratan, Jim Birnie, Lukas Braunschweiler, Joseph C. Breunig, Gary Calabrese, E. J. Corey, Marijn E. Dekkers, Michael P. Doyle, Arthur B. Ellis, Robin L. Garrell, James R. Heath, Rebecca Hoye, Nancy B. Jackson, Harry Kroto, Aslam Malik, Eli Pearce, Marquita M. Qualls, Paul J. Reider, Sara J. Risch, Alan Shaw, Kevan M. Shokat, Rakesh (Ricky) S. Sikand, Pratibha Varma-Nelson, George Whitesides, Frank Wicks Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY Madeleine Jacobs, Executive Director & CEO Brian Crawford, President, Publications Division EDITORIAL BOARD: Grace Baysinger (Chair); ACS Board of Directors Chair: Judith L. Benham; ACS President: Bruce E. Bursten; Ned D. Heindel, Madeleine M. Joullie, Leah Solla, Peter J. Stang
A Debate On Science THE CANDIDATES of both major political
parties have shown an uncommon willingness to debate each other during the long campaign for this year’s presidential nomination. I have to admit that I have been at best an intermittent follower of these debates, however, as they have become numbingly repetitive and uninformative. Only a few topics seem to dominate: immigration, Iraq, the economy, and terrorism. Too often, the conversation isn’t about much of anything beyond who is further to the left or the right of the other candidates, depending on which party is involved. An area that has almost never been touched on during the debates is science and technology policy. Unfortunately, I have become inured to politicians avoiding substantive discussions of pressing science and technology issues, even though I strongly believe that such issues are among the most critical facing the U.S. and the world today. Fortunately, not everyone concerned about science is as jaded as I am when it comes to politicians. A grassroots group called Science Debate 2008 has come together quite rapidly to call for a debate among presidential candidates devoted exclusively to science and technology issues (www.sciencedebate2008.com). Launched in December 2007, Science Debate 2008 is the brainchild of Matthew Chapman, a journalist and screenwriter, and Shawn Lawrence Otto, a filmmaker. A number of prominent scientists, university presidents, business leaders, editors of science-oriented publications (including myself), and government officials rapidly signed on. The group’s steering committee includes Reps. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-Mich.) and Rush Holt (D-N.J.), two of only a handful of members of Congress trained as scientists. Numerous organizations focused on science, technology, and engineering have also signed on as supporters, as have research universities. (The American Chemical Society is actively considering backing the initiative.) The group’s call is straightforward: “Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic
growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of the environment, health and medicine, and science and technology policy.” The list of potential topics the debate could cover is long. The Science Debate 2008 website, for instance, lists under “The Environment”: climate change, conservation and species loss, the future of the oceans, freshwater, population growth and the environment, and renewable energy research; under “Health and Medicine”: global diseases and pandemics, stem cell research, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, drug patents and generic drugs, the genome, and bioethics; and under “Science and Technology Policy”: scientific innovation and economic growth, improving science education, space exploration, preserving scientific integrity in government, and energy policy. To that list, I would add, at the very least, funding basic research in the physical sciences. Clearly, many details need to be worked out. When and where such a debate would be held, what organization(s) would sponsor it, who would be invited to participate, and who would frame and ask the questions are all still up in the air. What is important, though, is that the call for such a debate has gone out and resonated so forcefully with such a diverse group of individuals and organizations. What Science Debate 2008 says is that science and technology issues are important to many U.S. citizens. The questions are difficult ones and will force candidates to commit to positions that entail genuine change in how we run our economy and how we do research. For example, “Mr. or Ms. Presidential Candidate: Do you favor a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system to control emissions of CO2?” Or, “Should the focus of the U.S. space program be on establishing human outposts on the moon and Mars or on Earth-observing satellites and satellites and robotic missions to other planets and bodies in the solar system?” Get involved. Let’s make this debate a reality. Thanks for reading.
Editor-in-chief
Copyright 2008, American Chemical Society Canadian GST Reg. No. R127571347
Views expressed on this page are those of the author and not necessarily those of ACS. WWW.C E N- ONLI NE .ORG
5
FE BRUARY 1 1 , 20 0 8
