George Bush's "antiscientific governance," says Chris Mooney in the latest issue of Seed, has created a climate in America where science and scientists aren't valued. This isn't really news to most people, but with the campaign trail in full swing, many people have started looking to the next election as a source of hope for the future of American science. Mooney lays out what the next president should do, (fund stem cell research, join a treaty to curb global climate change, etc.), but the question is, how do Americans evaluate the candidates today?
Grist has created a specific page for the upcoming presidential election. If you click on "How Green is Your Candidate," you can get links to handy fact sheets, interviews, and other articles on green politics.
Both Grist and Mooney, however, focus on just the presidential election. It's easy to do, but I think this is a mistake. People are beginning to place all their faith in the next president to fix all the messes of the one we've got now (including Iraq, education, climate change, and the rest). No matter who we elect as the next president, he or she just isn't going to be able to solve those problems alone. People need to focus on smaller, more local efforts and candidates, to create a sea change from the ground up. -- Bennett Gordon