In earlier posts on this Weblog, I introduced readers to ScienceDebate2008, a citizen effort to engage the US presidential candidates in a real debate on science, technology and society.  The debates never happened, but each candidate (science advisors, I suppose) answered the 14 questions that ScienceDebate2008 participants generated.  If you haven’t read the questions and answers, I recommend you do.  

After the election of Barack Obama, Shawn Otto, the leader of the Sciencedebate2008 “organization” wrote in a letter to participants that “American woke up to a new era.”  I think he is correct, but there is a lot of work to do to make changes in the way science and science education are viewed, and the changes that are needed to restore science and science education as fundamental to making policy decisions, as well as creating an inquiry/humanistic science environment in K-12 schools and colleges.

Otto and his colleagues had an uphill battle to bring the idea of a discussion of science to the political arena.  He pointed out that most newspapers pay little attention to the political implications of science at a time when the major challenges of the day science-related issues: innovation and the economy, climate change and energy, healthcare, the environment, and science education.  Even after securing broadcast partners (PBS’s NOW and NOVA), and the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia as host, the candidates declined to attend a science debate that Otto wanted to broadcast.

The assumption by newspapers, and perhaps the political parties themselves, was that science and technology was not important to the American people, and science could be relegated to a lesser important topic.

Otto partnered with Research!America and conducted a national poll which found that 85% of US adults said that the candidates should participate in a debate to discuss key issues and problems related to science (health care, climate change, and energy).   This led the Sciencedebate2008 group to approach the two political campaigns that say:

look, Americans are very interested in seeing you debate, and here are the questions.  Virtually all of American science and academia is behind this.  You’ve got to answer these questions in writing, and we still think you should attend a nationally televised forum.  The American people deserve to know your positions on them.

The American public does think science matters!

Since the election there have been some interesting signs that could inform us as to the direction and the support that science will get in the next four years.  Here is one example.  Yesterday and today, The Governors’ Global Climate Summit was held in Beverly Hills, California, organized by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and other governors who have initiated climate change initiatives as well representatives from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and the European Union.  The important focus of the conference was to create a framework for United Nations’ negotiators to use when they meet in Pozna?, Poland, December 1 -12, 2008 to begin work on a new global climate agreement.  Past US administrations have not been as supportive on climate change as some would have liked, but it appears that Barack Obama’s administration will support research and will take the steps needed to curb global warming.  He gave a refreshing short speech indicating that global cooperation on climate change is needed, and he will engage vigorously to find solutions to global climate change.

What about science education?  Will science education see a new age as result of a change in politics.  It is difficult to tell.  The No Child Left Behind act is a major determinant to educational policy in this country, and has various impacts on schools, teachers and students.  If you read the answers each campaign gave to the question about science education, it appears that the No Child Left Behind act, which is due to be refunded, will remain, although under a democratic party leadership, it will probably change in some ways.  

Classroom teaching and student learning needs to be held accountable in ways that are different than the way we determine accountability today.  And that way is the paper and pencil test, a methodology that is difficult to use to determine student learning.  For instance, if you read the National Science Education Standards, the authors of these standards emphasize that the science curriculum should fundamentally help student learn how to inquire into science phenomena and develop problem solving skills to solve real problems.  We need to employ assessments that actively engage students in learning, and use these to make decisions about the nature of student learning.  Using a single test score to determine a students progress in a course is limited, and does not even come close to revealing the breadth of student learning.  And using average scores to determine school progress is also limiting.  We are in a muddle here, and it will take very courageous politicians, science educators, administrators and teachers to find our way into a new era.