And In The Opposite Corner

A few blogs , and not more than a dozen major science journal editors and the usual pathetic gaggle of investment banking heavies, Aspen regulars and  real, as opposed to Peace Prize,  Nobelists have united in calling on wannabe Presidential Candidates  to stage a Great American Science Debate as to what policies should prevail in the next Administration.

Since  many  A-list blogomerates said to be Conservative feature countdown clocks reminding us how long it has been since they challenged various worthies to debate climate change, the metaphysical status of blastocytes and toenail clippings, or the  finer points of Cambodian geography, it will be interesting to see how  CEI , AEI, Junk Science and various outposts of  Dittocephaly  field this one.

I do hope they rise to the occasion, or the bait, as the case may be, as there is a terrible dearth of politicized science in America. The problem is that for the Real Deal to exist, both sides have to have some inkling of what it is that they are trying to politicize.
Arranging a fair cat-fight on these subjects is an editorially parlous business, as  invitations to the Science Editors of National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American   Human Events , The Washington Times , The New York Post , The Wall Street Journal , The American Enterprise, or The American Spectator  are invariably returned postmarked:
                            NO SUCH PERSON AT THIS ADDRESS

Comments

[jens]

Dare I say that there is plenty of politicized science out there. As you point out though, there is an unfortunate lack of science behind the politicization.

I would be on the front lines placing bets at that cat fight, were it ever to occur. Although I'm afraid I might have to hide my eyes every time a certain southern governor opens his mouth.