Obama & McCain on Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math

This is an issue close to my heart:

Campaign Responses to Questions from The Association for Women in Science & The Society of Women Engineers

Obviously I'm biased, but McCain really comes off and not knowing anything about the issue. His answers are much shorter than Obama's, he doesn't show that he even knows what the initiatives they are asking about are, and his focus seems generally to be on education. What about female scientists, engineers, and mathematicians working right now? McCain's only real input is to say that he will create a presidential commission to study the issue. Why? There is a plethora of research out there on these issues. To me, this just says that he doesn't care enough to get informed and he doesn't want to committ to a decision.

At the very least, it becomes clear that this is an issue that the Obama/Biden campaign either already was somewhat knowledgeable about or they did some research before answering the questions. McCain comes off as if this is just a waste of his precious time and he'll just delegate all the work to "commissions."

Understanding Science ...

I think most competent, intelligent people would agree that our society - mostly fueled by right wing fundamentalist Christians and/or oil execs - is seeing a major assault on science. I would argue that this is more pervasive than even the standard anti-climate change conservatives; it is perpetrated by our poor education system as well as left wing radical animal rights activists, a lazy, profit drive media, and others. My views on that are for another post but the point is that it is clear that there are many misunderstandings about how science works. So here is an incomplete list of things I'd like to see more widely understood about science:

1. Yes, science is based on "theories" but those theories are upheld by consensus among experts in the field. How do you know if a theory, climate change for example, has passed the test? A good rule of thumb is that it is published in a peer reviewed journal. I found a great guide to understanding peer review in the scientific community here. The key points are:

• "Science has a system for assessing the quality of research before it is published. This system is called peer review.
• Peer review means that other scientific experts in the field check research papers for validity, significance and originality – and for clarity.
• Editors of scientific journals draw on a large pool of suitable experts to scrutinise papers before deciding whether to publish them.
• Many of the research claims you read in newspapers and magazines, find on the internet, or hear on television and the radio are not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
• Some of this research may turn out to be good but much of it is flawed or incomplete. Many reported findings, such as claims about “wonder cures” and “new dangers”, never come to anything.
• Unpublished research is no help to anyone. Scientists can’t repeat or use it and as a society we can’t base decisions about our public safety – or our family’s health for example – on work that has a high chance of being flawed.
• So, no matter how exciting or compelling new scientific or medical research is, you must always ask… Is it peer reviewed? If not, why not?"

2. Almost all research is government funded, especially medical and pharmaceutical research. Just in case you buy the argument that if we had universal, single payer health care that medical "innovation" would take a down turn, you're wrong. (Actually, it's possible that it would take an upturn because the government would actually get compensated for successful drug research. Anyway ...) Most drugs are developed by government funded research grants and then handed over, free of charge, to pharmaceutical companies to market and produce ... in a monopoly for the first few years. (Yay for "free" markets! <- sarcasm)

3. Just because a break-through didn't come directly out of previous research doesn't mean that the break through could have happened without that research. Understanding what doesn't work is just as important, and sometimes more important, than understanding what does.