A top science question the candidates for president should answer is:

Does a president need a minimum level of scientific understanding about the world and, if so, what is the minimum?

Law, neuroscience, sociology.

287 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    AnonymousAnonymous shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    6 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This makes no sense. So you're going to ask the president what he thinks the next presidents level of science should be instead of asking his opinion on pressing scientific matters?

      • bbuuddbbuudd commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The future of our nation is becoming clear - that of a diminishing power. Our pinnacle was when the pursuit of discovery and unleashing those discoveries in ways that changed and advanced humanity. The greatest example was the pursuit of the moon. A president without a vision for the future will continue to lead us into stagnation and irrelevance - bad for the US and bad for the world. Leadership in green energy has already been ceded. Will we go to Mars? Not if we have a president that is only interested in personal "legacy", who is short-sighted, and who is scientifically disinterested and undereducated.

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Gee, Phil, why don't you vent a little?

        Yes, few American presidents have had a primarily technical background, but many were scientifically literate and the best consulted advisers who were better informed. Carter holds an engineering degree and is a very bright man, but was not an adroit politician. By contrast, the self-termed "CEO president" was quite proud of trusting his gut over scientific literacy (and numeracy) turned a historic current-account budget surplus into searing deficits, excessive debt, and an economic collapse.

        We don't need a PhD president, but we do need a President who understands what science is, how it works, and what value it adds to our country in an increasingly technology-driven world.

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Phil, dude, Jimmy Carter the worst? Short memory, man. Tricky ****? Ronnie Rayguns? But you raise the problem, which is that you've got to know who to ask and you've got to know how to evaluate what they tell you. See the aforesaid Ronnie R. That's why some level of science literacy is needed. E.g., someone told Ronnie that Star Wars would work and he believed them.

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        A requirement of running for the presidency should be taking a first-year university course in basic ecology (covering populations, communities, ecosystems) and passing with at least a C+. Our planet's health is too important to trust to politicians whose knowledge of ecology is either outdated or nonexistent.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base