Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments |

Document 85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

by Science Debate 2008

Reposted from:
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=32

Democrats, Republicans agree on need, disagree on issues; health care tops list

See Charts of this Data

WASHINGTON—May 12, 2008— A new poll (charts, pdf, 3.1mb) shows that 85% of U.S. adults agree that the presidential candidates should participate in a debate on how science can be used to tackle America's major challenges. The poll found no difference between Democrats and Republicans on this question. A majority (84%) also agree that scientific innovations are improving our standard of living.

The poll, commissioned by Research!America and ScienceDebate2008.com and conducted by Harris Interactive®, shows that 56% strongly agree and 29% somewhat agree that the presidential candidates should participate in a debate to discuss key problems facing the United States, such as health care, climate change and energy, and how science can help tackle them.

"This topic has been virtually ignored by the candidates, but this poll shows that Americans of all walks know how important science and technology are to our health and way of life," said Shawn Lawrence Otto, CEO of Science Debate 2008. "We've heard a lot about lapel pins and preachers. But tackling the big science challenges is critical to our children's future — to the future of the country and the future of the planet. Americans want to know that candidates take these issues seriously, and the candidates have a responsibility to let voters know what they think."

A majority of U.S. adults say that past scientific research has contributed "a great deal" or "a lot" to their quality of life today (67%) and that today's research will continue to do so in the future (72%). When asked in what areas of their life scientific research plays the biggest role, top responses were health care (44%) and communication (20%).

"Americans see the need to invest in science now and want to hear from presidential candidates where science would stand in their administration," said the Honorable John Edward Porter, former Congressman and chair of Research!America. "Our federal health research and science agencies have had five years of reduced spending power or modest increases. It's time that candidates for the White House step up to say how they will address this faltering investment in our future." Research!America and more than 30 partners have created Your Candidates—Your Health, a voter education initiative to present presidential and congressional candidates' views on health and research at www.yourcandidatesyourhealth.org.

Among the most serious long-term issues facing the country, 76% rate health care the most serious, followed by alternative energy sources (69%), education (67%) and national security (61%). Issues also considered serious by a majority of U.S. adults include global economic competition (55%), poverty (53%) and climate change (53%).

"This is not a niche debate," said Craig Barrett, Chairman of Intel and one of the supporters of the Science Debate initiative. "Without the best education system and aggressive investments in basic research and development we will become a second rate economic power. We expect the candidates for president to take this very seriously."

Other findings highlight a desire for public policy to be based on scientific evidence:
• 67% say that public policies should be influenced more by scientific evidence than by elected officials' personal beliefs.
• 83% of U.S. adults - 88% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans - say it is important that the candidates talk about how science and scientific research will affect their policy-making decisions if they are elected.
• Only 19% say it is acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views — 16% of Republicans and 21% of Democrats.

Climate change had the widest partisan split among questions answered, with 66% of Democrats ranking it among the most serious, while only 33% of Republicans gave it a top ranking. Global poverty was the next widest split, with 63% of Democrats ranking it as a top issue while only 41% of Republicans saw it that way. Third on the list of widest divisions was education, with 59% of Republicans seeing it as a top issue, compared to 72% of Democrats.

This survey was conducted by telephone within the United States by Harris Interactive on behalf of Research!America and ScienceDebate2008.com between May 2 and May 5, 2008, among 1,003 adults ages 18+. This survey has a theoretical sampling error of ±3.1% For complete methodology and to learn more about the poll, visit www.researchamerica.org or www.sciencedebate2008.com.

About Research!America: Research!America (www.researchamerica.org) is the nation's largest not-for-profit public education and advocacy alliance working to make research to improve health a higher national priority.

About Science Debate 2008: Science Debate 2008 (www.sciencedebate2008.com) is a grassroots initiative spearheaded by a growing number of scientists and other concerned citizens to issue a call for a presidential debate on science and technology.

Detailed Polling Methodology

Comments 1 - 35 of 35 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #179521 by jimbob on May 13, 2008 at 11:11 am

Great idea -- somebody ask McCain how, from a geological perspective, he can "see the hand of god in the grand canyon."

Other Comments by jimbob

2. Comment #179522 by notsobad on May 13, 2008 at 11:12 am

 avatarhard to believe but encouraging if reliable

Other Comments by notsobad

3. Comment #179540 by davemei on May 13, 2008 at 11:30 am

 avatarEven though I would be a proponent, I think there is a very small chance something like this will actually happen. If there were to be a debate about stem cell research, nuclear technology, renewable energy...there is gonig to be a candidate who is going to affirm one of the topics and potentially piss off their constituents. While I'm sure most of Americans want to see such a debate, I'm also fairly confident that most Americans will be quick to criticize the candidates when they hear something they don't like. Not many politicians would want to take that risk.

Other Comments by davemei

4. Comment #179557 by Tetsujin on May 13, 2008 at 11:52 am

"...Issues also considered serious by a majority of U.S. adults include global economic competition (55%), poverty (53%) and climate change (53%).... "

So...

Issues not considered serious by a large minority of U.S. adults include global economic competition (45%), poverty (47%) and climate change (47%)

So, you could literally flip a coin and see if the "average" american cares.

Other Comments by Tetsujin

5. Comment #179568 by mesomodel on May 13, 2008 at 12:04 pm

 avatarThe candidate on the left is for science. The candidate on the right is against science. Let the debate begin...

Not a very well-titled article. Kind of like the "war on terror". We need to outlaw scary movies! I think "war on terrorism" is probably more accurate.

Seriously:
The candidates couldn't have a debate about science topics, as they have, at best, the most shallow understanding of science. In fact, I would venture to guess they are actually not even wrong on many topics. In any case, the article really suggests that 85% want a policy debate, not a science debate. Yes, global warming and energy have roots in science, but I don't think the public wants to hear the candidates debate about whether anthropogenic global warming is real or whether we have an energy problem. What the public wants to hear is what, if anything, we are going to do about it. They want to hear a debate of how to balance expenditures within NSF, NASA, and NIH, for example, against military, education, and other social programs.

Now, an actual discussion by the candidates about global warming would be interesting if they actually had an understanding of climate dynamics, but I suggest it would only reveal their utter ignorance. Kind of like me having a debate about the social structure of the Mongolian empire in the early 13th century, of which I know absolutely nothing about.

Other Comments by mesomodel

6. Comment #179637 by Border Collie on May 13, 2008 at 1:00 pm

 avatarThe scary part for me is that about ONLY 19% think that it's OK for a politician to hold back or alter a scientific report if it conflicts with his/her views. ONLY 19%?! I think I landed on the wrong planet.

Other Comments by Border Collie

7. Comment #179648 by Nova on May 13, 2008 at 1:13 pm

A majority (84%) also agree that scientific innovations are improving our standard of living
WHAT?! This is very bad news! 16% of Americans think science has contributed nothing to humanity!
A majority of U.S. adults say that past scientific research has contributed "a great deal" or "a lot" to their quality of life today (67%) and that today's research will continue to do so in the future (72%)
More crazy, what do these 33% think gave them everything they see around them? It's the sheer unthinking nature of them that baffles me! (how can more (72%) think science will help us in the future than think it helps us now (62%)? Or is that 72% of the 67% think it will help us in the future, so that only about 50% of Americans think science is of any use whatsoever?)

Other Comments by Nova

8. Comment #179650 by Shaden on May 13, 2008 at 1:16 pm

 avatarI hate surveys.

Other Comments by Shaden

9. Comment #179701 by Steven Mading on May 13, 2008 at 2:17 pm

On the one hand this sounds like a great idea with promise, but on the other hand I think it would backfire. Think about what would happen to any candidate that made a scientifically sound statement that happens to be hostile to religion. Because that would kill the candidate's chances of being elected, we'd end up hearing a lot of NOMA bullshit being spread around in that debate.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

10. Comment #179716 by Ty_Webb on May 13, 2008 at 2:56 pm

"...Issues also considered serious by a majority of U.S. adults include global economic competition (55%), poverty (53%) and climate change (53%).... "

So...

Issues not considered serious by a large minority of U.S. adults include global economic competition (45%), poverty (47%) and climate change (47%)

So, you could literally flip a coin and see if the "average" american cares.


If you look at the actual survey results, the highest ones were healthcare, alternative energy sources and education. My suspicion would be this is in fairly close agreement with a similar survey in the UK. And I would point out that climate change and alternative energy sources are reasonably closely linked.

I don't know how many answers they were allowed to tick for the question, but if it were say, 3 out of a set of options, I can easily see how those things could end up lower down the list than some of the others.

Link here: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/images/Poll08/Slide5.gif

Other Comments by Ty_Webb

11. Comment #179758 by Damien White on May 13, 2008 at 4:31 pm

It's nice to see how Americans think when their judgement is not being clouded by overt religosity. Does anyone think these same results would have been garnered had the first question the survey asked been about evolution?

Other Comments by Damien White

12. Comment #179761 by liberalartist on May 13, 2008 at 4:37 pm

 avataryeah, we want a lot from our politicians but wantin' ain't gettin'....

not to be cynical or anything.

Other Comments by liberalartist

13. Comment #179800 by rod-the-farmer on May 13, 2008 at 7:09 pm

 avatarThe question asked was

In general, do you think public policies should be influenced more by elected officials' personal beliefs or by scientific evidence?

67% said scientific evidence, 23% said personal beliefs. I have mixed feelings here. This would tend to indicate that a substantial majority of Americans trust more in science. But that nearly one quarter of them think personal beliefs should outweigh science, is disheartening. What I read from this is that the religious, possibly anti-science types do NOT represent anywhere near a majority. But there are enough of them that when they are active or vocal, there is a strong possibility they can over-rule the majority, who may well be too busy to cast a vote, or even raise their voices. As I say, good news AND bad.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

14. Comment #179810 by Styrer- on May 13, 2008 at 7:54 pm

I am sure that Leon Kass and his ilk will attempt to persuade Bush that 85% of Americans are simply going through a little tantrum, stomping their little ignorant irreligious feet, and not REALLY desirous of better quality of life and of increased longevity on foot of scientific investigations.

I am equally sure that Bush will be duly persuaded by such attempts.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

15. Comment #179818 by ChartreuseMuse on May 13, 2008 at 8:10 pm

 avatarWhat I find incredulous about this poll is that they couldn't find an Independent, Green, or Libertarian in the 1000 odd people they surveyed???

It's like having a poll where they only surveyed Catholics & Protestants!!

It's exactly like the structure of the ScienceDebate 2008- completely orthodox, Democrats & Republicans allowed only, everyone else is persona non grata.

They claim only McCain responded, yet 3 Green Party candidates vying for the party's nomination responded with interest and enthusiasm and were ignored. Poetic justice that the Dems can't even pen a decent RSVP a non?

Other Comments by ChartreuseMuse

16. Comment #179826 by dragonfirematrix on May 13, 2008 at 8:28 pm

 avatarLike many in Europe, I believe in tolerance. Honestly, I do believe in tolerance. However, I am secularist/atheist in America, who happens to believe in being tolerant towards only those who are tolerant.

MY SOLUTION: The religious should be forcefully (by law) committed to live by their intolerance and disbelief of science by not being allowed to enjoy the benefits of any science.

Maybe if the religious see what happens to their children without science, the religious might (fat chance) see the truth and the light.

MAKE IT SO.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

17. Comment #179880 by Styrer- on May 13, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Comment #179828 by babrock on May 13, 2008 at 8:37 pm

In view of your comment, do you think that the title to this article is misleading?

If not, I do not understand why you have such a negative attitude - which I note you set out from the start - to the inclusion of all Americans in such a science debate.

If yes, why?

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

18. Comment #179904 by gcdavis on May 14, 2008 at 1:25 am

 avatar85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

Who would say no to a question like that, it amazes me that 15% actually did?

You have to look behind the response and there I would guess are two contradictory motives, one that fears that science will undermine religion, the other that science will cure all ills. Both camps hope that a debate will support their own point of view.

Other Comments by gcdavis

19. Comment #179917 by King of NH on May 14, 2008 at 1:52 am

 avatarChartreuseMuse:
"What I find incredulous about this poll is that they couldn't find an Independent, Green, or Libertarian in the 1000 odd people they surveyed???

It's like having a poll where they only surveyed Catholics & Protestants!!"

I have taken polls that don't offer any choice other than Dem. or Rep., or "go to church every day" vs "go to church only sometimes/rarely." It reminds me of Stephen Colbert's question: "George Bush. Like him or love him?"

Other Comments by King of NH

20. Comment #179921 by enew on May 14, 2008 at 1:57 am

hey 85% of how many? 10, 20 100. 1000.100000. its like i am living in a fantasy novel. What is wrong with my fellow unbelievers 85% of 10 people is what? they want a presidential debate on science ? how many ? it is more probable that the the people who answered are trying to find more reasons to believe in god.

Other Comments by enew

21. Comment #179937 by Incredulous on May 14, 2008 at 2:40 am

Lies, damn lies and statistics! However, I think it would be a welcome change for an American debate to focus on Science and its place in delivering quality of life than to listen to them continually rant on about the imaginary effects of imaginary conversations with imaginary gods. Maybe this kind of thing does signal a ray of light appearing over the horizon.

Other Comments by Incredulous

22. Comment #180003 by glittergulch on May 14, 2008 at 4:50 am

 avatarI can't shake my nervousness about a science debate.

Other Comments by glittergulch

23. Comment #180048 by robj on May 14, 2008 at 6:25 am

Research related to Science is crucial for mankind and potentially the long term survival of our earth. Science also promotes innovation for the younger part of society, which will lead our nation(s) in the future.

Other Comments by robj

24. Comment #180073 by mixmastergaz on May 14, 2008 at 7:17 am

 avatarI share Nova's incomprehension at the apparently self-contradictory responses to this poll. It reminds me of an episode of the West Wing:

"68% think we spend too much on foreign aid; 59% want it cut."

I agree with Rod; good and bad news here.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

25. Comment #180153 by Double Bass Atheist on May 14, 2008 at 9:27 am

 avatarNo doubt some creotard will say that ID is science, and therefore, should be part of any debate on Science.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

26. Comment #180157 by AmericanGodless on May 14, 2008 at 9:41 am

 avatarOk, so maybe 85% want a presidential debate on science; 15% don't. But this tells me nothing about WHY they would or would not like to see such a debate. How many from that 85% just want to see where each candidate comes down on (for example) global warming: in favor of my own prejudice, or my nitwit neighbor's, so that I can vote for what I already think is the scientific (or divine) truth. Maybe the 15% don't want to see a debate because they fear that any candidate that actually shows some possibility of understanding the impact of science on such issues will be labeled as an elitist wonk, and we'll once again see intelligence and competency become a political liability.

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

27. Comment #180181 by tieInterceptor on May 14, 2008 at 10:47 am

 avatar


• Only 19% say it is acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views �" 16% of Republicans and 21% of Democrats.


ONLY????
19% is an amazingly hughe number of people that consider that falsifying data to change the facts is OK if it goes against your views...

19% of the population is a lot of sociopaths running around, scary...

most of them must be in positions of power and responsibility, since elbowing their way to the top must not be a problem for them...

no wonder the world is such a cynical place, The right to lead as a politician and have vote should be earned... ideally after an exam to screen out the crazies, just like driving a car, on the wrong hands it can do lots of damage.

(I know, I know... impossible to do, that system would be to easy to corrupt into removing the opposition from the right to vote, a la Iranian stile... )

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

28. Comment #180218 by Steven Mading on May 14, 2008 at 11:36 am

From /13. rod-the-farmer/

But there are enough of them that when they are active or vocal, there is a strong possibility they can over-rule the majority, who may well be too busy to cast a vote, or even raise their voices. As I say, good news AND bad.

What ends up happening in our winner-take-all psuedo-democracy is that a minority that unthinkingly votes homogeneously in lock-step can end up deciding the election even when opposed by the majority, if that majority is thinking, intelligent, and therefore has differences of opinion and does not vote homogeneously. This is why the evangelicals have such strong power in our elections and elected candidates have no choice but to avoid offending them. (Candidates don't always avoid offending them, but the ones who are like that don't end up becoming elected candidates.)

Other Comments by Steven Mading

29. Comment #180230 by Devolution on May 14, 2008 at 12:10 pm

 avatarHey this is the top article on Digg right now! Good job guys!

Other Comments by Devolution

30. Comment #180236 by adent1066 on May 14, 2008 at 12:22 pm

While such a debate is sorely needed, I feel that this poll cannot accurately reflect the actual desires of the American populace. I have a very hard time believing that 85% of the US wants such a debate. Is this is a the same population that watches American Idol & votes red ? Maybe there's hope after all ?

Other Comments by adent1066

31. Comment #180335 by snoov on May 14, 2008 at 3:53 pm

I think there's a problem with the question.

If 'personal'was substituted with 'christian' i'd bet the results would be different.

Other Comments by snoov

32. Comment #180338 by Rawaz on May 14, 2008 at 4:02 pm

I think Obama gave a very detailed vision about what he thinks about technology @ Google

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo

Other Comments by Rawaz

33. Comment #180499 by DamnDirtyApe on May 15, 2008 at 5:54 am

 avatarIndeed, I thought Obama's google speech was very promising. I'd even go as far as saying he's a bit of a geek.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

34. Comment #181302 by studiorat on May 16, 2008 at 9:32 pm

 avatar90% of all statistics are made up. Of that 90%, 33% is total bullshit 75% of the time (with the exception of .3% of the christian faith who believe in over 50% of it 20% of the time).

And now, a man with a radio in his nose....

Other Comments by studiorat

35. Comment #184264 by phil rimmer on May 24, 2008 at 8:31 am

 avatarNo debate needed.

Just hear and understand this-

... said Craig Barrett, Chairman of Intel and one of the supporters of the Science Debate initiative, "Without the best education system and aggressive investments in basic research and development we will become a second rate economic power.


Then decide if you want your country to be on top of the heap or living off scraps down at the bottom.

Other Comments by phil rimmer
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: