The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Needs our Help!
05.7.09 by Daniel Gaddy
I received the following information from Sciencedebate.org. Over the past several months, and again last week at his address to the National Academies of Science, President Obama pledged to restore scientific integrity to government. Of course, that is easier said than done. Apparently Obama recognizes this, and has asked for input from us, the concerned public.
On March 9, the president formally asked the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to make recommendations on how the executive branch can meet this pledge.
The OSTP has opened a public comment period regarding this directive, giving you the opportunity to share your thoughts on what the next steps should be. Comments are due by Wednesday, May 13.
The OSTP is looking for recommendations on the six issues President Obama identified in his memo:
- hiring and keeping qualified scientists
- defining new policies to ensure integrity
- using “well-established scientific processes” like peer review
- disclosing scientific findings
- ensuring that principles of scientific integrity are being adhered to
- adopting additional policies like whistleblower protections
The OSTP is accepting comments via email and through their blog, here.
Their original request for input can be found here (pdf).
Many organizations in Washington will be giving their opinions of what the OSTP plan should entail. We believe it is important for scientists and other science supporters to be included in that process, and for you to indicate to the White House how science and scientific integrity affect your work, your families, and your communities.
If you’re interested in more background information, visit the scientific integrity site of our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists here.
Presidential Candidates Answer Science Questions
09.17.08 by Daniel Gaddy
In the debates that took place during the Republican primaries earlier this year, some of the candidates for President proudly proclaimed that they did not believe in evolution. Many of us in the science world were aghast. Luckily, none of those candidates made it very far in the race, but it still raised an important issue: politicians of all stripes will pander to almost any group of people on almost any topic, but science is not one of them. With this in mind, Lawrence Krauss, a Case Western University professor of astrophysics, decided to try to do something about it. He joined with screenwriter/directer Matthew Chapman, journalist and author of The Republican War on Science Chris Mooney, and screenwriter Shawn Lawrence Otto to form a non-profit organization called Science Debate 2008. The primary purpose of this organization is to “elevate the visibility of science in the Presidential race,” with the hope of organizing science-oriented debates between candidates of both parties. More than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on and supported Science Debate 2008, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities. More than 3400 questions were submitted for candidates to answer about science and the future of America.
Well, those debates never materialized, but Science Debate 2008 would not be defeated. Instead, they narrowed the list of 3400 questions down to the top 14 questions, addressing a broad range of topics including climate change, energy, health care, research, science education and American innovation. The questions were submitted to the candidates and, finally, the candidates decided these topics were important enough to address specifically.
| Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off