Yesterday I attended a lecture called "U.S. Science Policy: What Should Be on the Presidents Agenda." I found that the panelists were very well informed despite the fact they were'nt actual scientitsts. The first panelist to speak was free-lance columnist Christopher Mooney. He posed some major questions to the candidates. "How are we going to turn down the global thermostat?" and "is it o.k. for the U.S. to militarize space"?

Mooney mentioned the fact that half of U.S. economic growth since World War II is a result of investment in science and technology (National Academy of Sciences). He also revealed that in this decade the U.S. has spent half of the amount on scientific research, that we spent in the 1960's. That is truly appauling to me. Maybe thats why our markets are failing. Investment in technology and more importanly renewable energy is obviously critical to our economy. So, unless we want more major financial institutions being bought out or going bankrupt, we need to do the research to spur our economy.

The second panelist Jonathan Moreno, a professor of medical ethics at Penn State, brought up the stem cell research debate. Stem cells have been illegal since 2001 and the samples scientist are using are quickly losing potency. It has been proven that stem cells have regenerative abilities. So why not use them to treat soldiers coming back with head trauma? Why is it wrong because it came from a fetus that terminated?

I hope both candidates consider these questions. I know the debate is on foreign policy but some of this stuff is really worth taking another look at.