Summer the Astronomer

I didn't expect to question my self-worth as an astronomer while watching the third Presidential debate last night, but that's what happened.

Sen. McCain's relentless harping on Sen. Obama for destroying "Joe the Plumber's" American dream was just too much. Let me tell you about my American dream. It has to do with stars.

I have been studying them my entire life. It began before my earliest memories, but once evident, my interest in everything celestial was supported by my mom, encouraged by my teachers, and bolstered by an elementary school field trip to a planetarium. Nothing special, just a high school in the area that was endowed well enough to have a small dome and an even smaller star projector. If I had to guess, I would say it couldn't have cost more than $3,000. (And that was in 1986). But the opportunity to actually see the motion of the planets and stars across the sky was - as the commercial says - priceless.

I was fortunate enough to grow up in a great public school district in Northern Virginia where a field trip to such a high school was possible. For many students both then and now, this may not be the case. This is especially a tragedy for inner city students; those who can't even see the stars on their own because the skies over their heads are lit day and night by the sun or the ever-increasing electric glow of urban life. The best way these students can get access to the stars is through a museum planetarium that can both educate and inspire. In Chicago, the Adler Planetarium fills this role. And yes, top of the line, robust, professional star projectors cost a pretty penny. About $3 million, as Sen. McCain is so fond of pointing out.

By categorizing this proposed expense (that Sen. Obama supported) as pork, Sen. McCain is belittling my American dream, and the dream of young kids who, after a trip to the Adler, might one day grow up to share my love of the universe. Planetariums such as the Adler are in a unique position to help inspire students to pursue science and math - something our country is in desperate need of as Sen. McCain himself acknowledged in last night's debate.

I would like to remind Sen. McCain that the American dream comes in all shapes and sizes. Why does Joe the Plumber matter more than Summer the Astronomer? After all, my future observatory is going to require some plumbing.

Appeals on Behalf of Science

Science Debate 2008 and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held a candidates forum in Boston last week. They produced several video statements from attendees on why the presidential candidates should participate in this debate. I've posted a few of them here to give you an idea of the range of people involved and committed to making this event a reality.

First up is John Pedesta, former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton.



Next is Susan Wood, former Former Assistant Commissioner for Women’s Health at the FDA.



Lastly, here is Kevin Knobloch, President of the Union of Concerned Scientists.



View more videos from concerned scientist and policy makers who support this debate here.

The Debate is On!

The proposal for a scientifically themed presidential debate by the organization ScienceDebate2008 has taken another step to becoming a reality. A time and place have now been set: April 18th at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The candidates have been invited. Now, as the New York Times blog Dot Earth observes, we must sit back and wait to see what happens.

The question is whether or not the candidates will agree to participate. There are complicated issues and complex scientific theories at the heart of the important topics in the upcoming election such as the flailing economy, the energy crisis, and stem cell research, to name a few. Will the candidates be willing to open themselves up to in-depth discussions on these topics? It's dangerously easy to jump to the conclusion that this is just a high profile science quiz, but this is not the case! As Shaun Otto, the CEO of Science Debate, Inc. puts it:

"This debate is about your pocketbook, it’s about your job, it’s about whether you can still afford health care, whether we’re going to do something about climate change or not, what kind of world your kids are going to be living in in ten or fifteen years, how are we going to respond to peak oil, where is the next transistor economy going to come from?...
...This is the future of America, not some quirky science quiz. I’m not a scientist, I’m a writer and a concerned citizen. I care about the future for my son’s sake and for my own conscience, and I’m doing everything I can to elevate these issues in our national dialogue because they are that important…"

I support this debate wholeheartedly. It reenforces the fact that science is something everyone needs to pay attention to as it shapes so much of our world today. More importantly, I believe it sets an inspiring example for every school-age child and for the country if the president of the United States possess a high level of scientific literacy. With science and math capabilities nationwide continuing to decline, this debate provides the candidates with a unique opportunity to play a role in turning this around, before even getting into the White House.

How Prescient am I?

NPR has jumped on the presidential science debate wagon, or at least is taking notice of the call for one.


Click here to listen to a great appeal by Shawn Lawrence Otto, one of the organizers of the Science Debate 2008 movement, on Talk of the Nation: Science Friday from earlier today.

Science Literacy in the White House

I know I've been offline for most of the new year so far, but never fear, I'm still in touch with the outside world. Progress on the thesis is being made and my sanity is being maintained...so far...but that's not why I'm writing now. While keeping up with current events, especially those going on back home, I have been excitedly following the twists and turns of the presidential race. (Don't worry, I have no intentions of going political on this blog!) However, I came across a great post on the New York Times' Tierney Lab proposing the idea of a scientifically themed debate among the candidates, and this struck me as a GREAT idea for several reasons:

1) There are an unprecedented number of policy issues in this campaign rely greatly on available scientific data and interpretation of said data. Think renewable energy, alternative fuel, climate change, stem cell research, etc. (Not sure if the 'unprecedented claim is true or not, but it got your attention, right? And besides, I'm way to tired and busy to do the research to back that up, so can we chalk it up to poetic license?)

2) Scientific and mathematical illiteracy is a huge problem in our nation. Fewer and fewer students are studying science and math in school and, as a result, those who don't may grow up to believe anything and everything someone in a while lab coat with glasses and a pocket protector tells them, never knowing how and why to question and investigate scientific claims for themselves.

3) We require our presidents to be fluent in areas such as law, foreign policy, economics, and the like, why not at least demand that they can pass Science & Math 101? Okay, of course they surround themselves with experts on everything under the sun, but I'll bet you that, on average, presidents have a firmer grasp of the basics and are more likely to hold their own with their advisers in every area save science (present individual in charge excluded, Oops! I just went political...). 

I don't know about you, but I would feel a lot more comfortable about our future if the leader of our country had some scientific habits of mind. If you are at all inclined to feel the same, I encourage you to check out the group Science Debate 2008 that is making a serious push for having a presidential science debate. And check out this excellent piece from Salon.com, written by one of the members of the steering committee who explains why this is such an important issue much more eloquently than I ever could.

I'm now turning my attention back to my own scientific debate with my thesis and the relative (in)significance of my own data.

(Image credit: Science Debate 2008)