April 28 2008 / by juldrich
Category: Culture Year: General Rating: 10 Hot
By Jack Uldrich
(An opinion piece)
Cross-posted from jumpthecurve
Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Democratic presidential
candidate John Edwards, recently had a thoughtful opinion piece
bemoaning the media’s lack of meaningful coverage of today’s
important issues. To emphasize her point, she noted that many
American’s can now tell you Barack Obama’s bowling score but can’t
recite one major plank in his health care plan. 
It is a valid criticism and I wholeheartedly agree with her
critique but Edwards, the candidates, and the media are missing
another serious issue – the accelerating pace of science and
technological change.
More specifically, no candidate is approaching today’s important
issues of health care, education, the environment and war from the
perspective that the near-term future of all of these issues will
almost certainly will be different – and perhaps radically so –
because of the accelerating pace of technological change.
Let me provide just a few recent examples. Late last year, the
Pentagon reported that it had begun arming robots with guns for the
first time ever. It then announced, to little fanfare, that it
intended to triple the number of robots in battlefield situations
by 2010. And by 2015 – a date that would place it near the end of
the next president’s second term – the Defense Department has
publicly stated that it expects one-third of the U.S. fight force
to consist of robots. (cont.)
If this holds true, it will be a shift of historic proportions
and it would be helpful to have the three remaining would-be
commanders-in-chief explain their thinking on the morality of
machines making life-and-death decisions and, more broadly, whether
they think the wide-scale use of robots might lead to more or fewer
wars.
Earlier this year another scientific advance with profound
public policy implications was announced when a handful of
publications touted the remarkable amount of progress scientists
are making in creating artificial life forms. According to the
reports, most experts now agree that it is reasonable to expect a
breakthrough in the field of synthetic biology within the next
three to 10 years. One scientist was even quoted as saying “We’re
talking about a technology that could change our world in pretty
fundamental ways.”
To my way of thinking, anything that can change our world in
“pretty fundamental ways” is appropriate fodder for discussion
during a presidential campaign. These synthetic life forms are
purported to be capable of wonderful things like fighting disease
and efficiently creating new forms of clean, sustainable energy.
However, they might also be used for more nefarious purposes. At a
minimum, it would be helpful to hear how those now wishing to lead
this country think about this issue and whether they want to boldly
lead us into this brave new world or, alternatively, whether they
want to prevent scientists from even attempting to explore
synthetic biology’s potential.
In the field of health care, the advances are no else
astounding. Earlier this week, a company announced that it had
identified two new genes closely linked with breast cancer. If
true, the test could be a godsend for some of the 180,000 women who
are expected be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. Along with
the scores of other such genetic tests now under development for a
variety of other diseases, the field of genomics could
revolutionize both the practice and the economics of health
care.
Of course, such advances are just one field that will
fundamentally alter health care in the coming decade. Stem cell
research, biotechnology and nanotechnology – a field that the
director of the National Cancer Institute has publicly said might
“help eliminate the suffering and death from cancer by 2015” – are
also all advancing at near a near exponential rate.
Finally, hardly a day seems to go by without some new advance
being touted in the field of computers, Internet technology, voice
recognition software, or the development of new immersive virtual
reality and social networking technologies. It is not much of a
stretch to think that these advances will deeply alter the
educational environment of the future. Yet instead of hearing a
word about how any of these new tools might transform education,
all too often we are offered only stale platitudes about an issue
which nearly everyone should be at or near the top of their
agenda.
Maddeningly, though, the candidates seem oblivious to all of the
aforementioned advances. As such, they are doing nothing to prepare
the public for either the exciting opportunities or difficult
challenges that these advances portend.
Not all of the blame for failing to address the future can be
laid at the feet of the candidates. Few in the media attempt to
pose thoughtful questions along these lines and most citizens are
more naturally concerned with more immediate issues that confront
them on a daily basis.
Alas, these are merely excuses. The truest test of leadership is
a person’s ability to articulate a positive vision for the future
and then move people toward action that helps turn that vision into
reality.
Therefore, if the candidates or the media aren’t going to rise
to the challenge it is incumbent upon those of us who believe these
issues are critical to our future to take action.
To this end, I would invite all readers who feel this way to
sign on as a supporter of ScienceDebate2008 – an organization
dedicated to trying hold a debate about scientific and
technological challenges that face this country.
Moreover, I would urge like-minded individuals to begin speaking
up about these issues. If our leaders won’t lead us then it is
incumbent upon us who see a better future to create an environment
where our leaders can at least follow.
Comment Thread ()
