A second thought

During coffee time I picked up an old issue of Nature (Feb 8, 2008). There has been a proposition of a presidential debate of Science (www.sciencedebate2008.com) wherein the US presidential candidates debate their stands in science topics ranging from climate change and teaching intelligent design in science class. Scientists of high-profile and others have signed for the good cause. David Goldston, now a visiting professor at Harvard University, questions in his column whether it is appropriate to put science, especially funding appropriation into the spotlight at such a national level. He points out that National Science Foundation (NSF) has been enjoying a relatively moderate and healthy growth of budget and peaceful operation, whereas NASA stands at the other extreme where not only its budget but almost every moves are constantly monitored under the microscopes of the congress and the public. Goldston also pointed out that the doubling of NIH's budget from 1998 to 2003 was aggravated by political pressure, resulting in a surge in research money and an inflated biomedical research community now complaining insufficient funding and lack of new researchers.

Goldston instead proposes to have a debate of policy on science and have the candidates reinstate the integrity of science in devising policies, an issue Bush infuriated scientists at home and abroad and the major reason of this advocation for a presidential science debate, within one of the national presidential debates. He believes that categorizing science funding as a domestic spending will do more good to the scientific community than turning it into a politics football.