Remember when colleagues and I launched ScienceDebate in 2007 to get candidates to address science and technology issues on the campaign trail? Now we’re working harder than ever to restore science to its rightful place in the 2012 presidential election. Here’s a look at our latest poll, in partnership with the great folks at Research!America:

Consensus among Protestants, Catholics for science debates, science-based policies; Twice as many think the US not spending enough on alternative energy as do defense

WASHINGTON (April 3, 2012) — In a surprising rebuff of recent political wisdom that Republicans and religiously affiliated voters are becoming “anti-science,” eighty-two percent of Catholics and eighty-three percent of Protestants say it is more important that the candidates for president debate the major science challenges facing the United States than it is they debate faith and values, according to a new national public opinion poll (PDF) of attitudes about science, faith and public policy commissioned by ScienceDebate.org.

Respondents ranked science third in importance as a presidential debate theme, ahead of the environment, and far ahead of faith and values, which forty-nine percent of Catholics and fifty-nine percent of Protestants rated as important, but below the economy and taxes, and national security, which ranked one and two respectively.  Even Born Again Protestants rated a presidential science debate more important overall than a faith and values debate, but they felt more strongly than non Born Agains about faith and values and national security issues.

This consensus was similar among all likely voters: eighty-five percent agreed that the presidential candidates should participate in a science debate to discuss key science-based challenges facing the United States, such as healthcare, climate change, energy, education, and innovation and the economy. Eighty-nine percent of Democrats and eighty-three percent of Republicans also agreed.  There were no major differences by gender, with eighty-three percent of men and eighty-five percent of women agreeing.

Alternative energy is weighing heavily on voters’ minds. Fifty-three percent of all likely US voters rank developing alternative energy as a top US spending priority, second only to paying down the federal deficit. This is about twice the number of voters that think the government is not spending enough on national defense or space exploration. Funding science and math education came in fourth, just behind investing in roads and bridges, and scientific research was fifth.

The survey reveals deep concerns among Americans about their country’s ability to maintain leadership in science.  Just forty-two percent of likely voters believe the United States will remain the world leader in science just eight years from now, and eighty-five percent are concerned that an uncertain future for science funding in the US will cause scientists to leave their jobs or move to other countries.

A similar consensus exists among respondents – both overall and among Catholics and Protestants – that public policies should be based on the best available science and not the personal opinions or beliefs of elected officials, said ScienceDebate.org cofounder Shawn Lawrence Otto, who said the views could have an impact on major science-driven policies such as whether and how to address climate change.

“Basing public policies on science instead of beliefs or opinions is clearly of great importance to large majorities of Americans,” added Otto.  “Even though we often hear of faith opposing science in the political arena, these findings show that that perception isn’t necessarily true.  Americans realize that so many of the most serious problems the country is facing revolve around science, that science is itself an American value, and they want to know what kind of commitment and judgment the candidates for president are going to show in actually doing something about them.  That’s why science debates should be a normal part of the political process.”

Eighty-one percent of Republicans also said it is inappropriate for elected officials to hold back or interfere with scientific reports that conflict with their own views, along with just seventy-five percent of Democrats.

ScienceDebate.org is a 501(C)3 nonprofit dedicated to elevating the role of science in American public dialogue.  In 2008, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain answered online questions from ScienceDebate.org.  Obama’s answers formed the early basis for the Obama science policy.

The poll was conducted online by JZ Analytics (John Zogby, Senior Analyst) in partnership with Research!America and ScienceDebate.org.  There were 1005 respondents for a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.  More details of the methodology together with the headlines can be found at http://www.sciencedebate.org/assets/downloads/ScienceDebate2012Poll.pdf.

Our latest biannual UT Energy Poll has just been released and the results are quite interesting–especially with regard to climate change and the upcoming presidential election. Take a look at some of the numbers:

April 10, 2012 – Consumers strongly support increased production of energy from domestic sources, particularly natural gas and renewables, according to the University of Texas at Austin Energy Poll that was released today. This is the second release of the poll, a twice-annual national online survey of energy issues.

The poll also offered insights in how energy issues may affect the upcoming presidential election, with more than 65 percent of the 2,371 poll respondents saying that energy is important to them. Respondents generally favor candidates whose policies would increase domestic energy production, and expanded natural gas development had the most support among consumers, with 61 percent saying they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who backs this issue. Consumers also support an increase in renewable forms of energy, with 59 percent saying they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports
additional financial incentives for companies engaged in renewable technologies, as well as a candidate who would require utilities to obtain a designated percentage of their electricity from renewable sources.

Half of the consumers surveyed are in favor of candidates who support approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to transport oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast, and 46 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports expanded offshore oil development in the Gulf of Mexico. Support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge edges out opposition, 38 to 32 percent.

Survey participants remain very concerned about the high cost of gasoline, with nearly 90 percent saying they expect prices at the pump to rise during the next six months, an expectation that is particularly strong among Republican voters. More than four out of five consumers also expect their total household energy expenditures to increase.

“We see a significant trend of increased pricing concerns and more support for domestic energy production across the board in this survey,” said Wayne Hoyer, co-director of the survey and professor and marketing department chair at the McCombs School of Business. “While most respondents expect prices to continue rising, they’re also more optimistic about our energy future, perhaps because of the abundance of natural gas and other domestic energy resources. These trends will be interesting to watch as we head into this fall’s elections.”

Despite intense media coverage of hydraulic fracturing, 62 percent of survey participants say they are unfamiliar with the practice or have never heard of it. Of the 32 percent who are familiar with hydraulic fracturing, support outweighed opposition, 48 percent to 36 percent.

When asked to describe how they feel about the regulation of hydraulic fracturing:
• 38 percent favor more regulation.
• 14 percent say the technology is already over-regulated.
• 22 percent think existing regulations are sufficient but need better enforcement.
• 16 percent believe existing regulation and enforcement are sufficient.

Support for environmental issues declined from last fall’s Energy Poll on virtually every measure. For example, asked to choose between economic growth or environmental protection, more consumers preferred growth; six months ago the responses were more evenly split. Significantly fewer consumers say they are willing to pay much higher prices to protect the environment, at 30 percent compared with 38 percent last fall. Half of the survey respondents say they are not environmentalists, while 37 percent describe themselves as “passive” and 8 percent as “active” environmentalists.

Other findings in the poll include:

• 65 percent of respondents say global climate change is occurring; 22 percent say it is not.
• Participants cite deforestation (70 percent) and fossil fuels (65 percent) as the most significant contributing factors in global climate change.
• The energy resources seen as providing the most jobs are oil, 34 percent; renewable energy, 13 percent; coal, 12 percent; natural gas, 11 percent; and nuclear, 3 percent.
• The number of consumers likely to seek more information about global energy issues in the next six months has declined, from 60 percent of respondents last fall to 37 percent.

The University of Texas at Austin Energy Poll, developed by the McCombs School of Business’ Energy Management and Innovation Center, seeks to provide an objective, authoritative look at consumer attitudes and perspectives on key energy issues. It is designed to help inform national discussion, business planning and policy development. Conducted biannually, the online poll rates leadership on energy issues, measures consumers’ energy priorities, and tracks knowledge and energy consumption behaviors. The poll is a collaborative effort of academics, polling experts, nongovernmental organizations, large energy users and energy producers.

The University of Texas at Austin Energy Poll reflects the views of 2,371 Americans surveyed during March 5-16, 2012. The data were weighted using U.S. Census Bureau figures, as well as propensity scores, to ensure the sample’s composition reflects the actual U.S. population.

I’m signing off for one month while traveling in Europe as a 2012 Marshall Memorial Fellow. I’ll be visiting Brussels, Stockholm, Rome, Sarajevo, and Berlin to learn more about energy, science, politics, and culture beyond our borders.

The Marshall Memorial Fellowship provides a unique opportunity for emerging leaders from the United States and Europe to explore institutions, politics, and culture on the other side of the Atlantic.  American and European Fellows each visit five cities during the 24-day program. They meet formally and informally with a range of policymakers, prominent community members, and local MMF alumni.  During the trip, each Fellow also has the opportunity to explore his or her individual professional interests beyond the group programs, which focus on a range of domestic and international policy areas.

Yesterday I found myself in an interesting conversation with a biologist regarding climate change. We were talking about how the loss of permafrost will be particularly devastating given the positive feedback loop that will lead to warmer temperatures. The subject was carbon emissions…

And that’s exactly where I was focused when I started seriously studying climate change. I was a graduate student at the University of Maine in the School of Marine Science interested in ocean acidification – the way all of our excess carbon is changing ocean pH and the marine environment in ways we cannot yet predict. (A topic that has yet to make a dent in the mainstream media, but soon we won’t be able to ignore as easily).

From there I moved into the political realm, working for Senator Bill Nelson on oceans, environment, and energy. It was the year of An Inconvenient Truth and emphasis was on whether cap and trade might pass. On the Hill, climate was inextricably linked to policy discussions that would ultimately fail, setting us back at least 10 years.

Next came Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment where climate is on everyone’s mind. I was part of The Pimm Group, which is interested in the conservation of biodiversity by saving forests. And since deforestation contributes tremendously to our GHG problem, reforestation would not only trap carbon, but also protect hotspots for threatened species.

Four years later I moved to UT’s Austin’s School of Engineering. Same topic, different language. Climate, after all, is really an energy conversation. Engineers are a more optimistic generally, but very practical as well. At The Webber Energy Group, we were focused on finding solutions through new technologies and more efficient practices.

Now I work at the McCombs School of Business as Director of UT’s Project on Energy Communication. It’s an initiative to understand public attitudes and perceptions of energy topics like hydraulic fracturing, the Keystone Pipeline, renewables, and more–which in turn, will be extremely useful in related policy discussions.

I don’t expect many people spend time in as many academic silos as I have–and with each step I’ve come to appreciate a different way of thinking about the same problem. The language, expertise, interests, and motivations change along the way, but they are all players in a much larger symphony that tells the story of, perhaps, the greatest global challenge we face: A changing planet.

I still have much to learn. But that’s just the point. We all do. So while it’s easy to barricade ourselves off from other compartmentalized departments by presuming we’re the ones who truly understand the arduous road ahead, that’s a losing strategy.

Instead, keep an open mind and talk to colleagues in other fields. You might begin to perceive your own questions in a myriad of new ways. And if we work hard at understanding each other – we might actually make progress.

Watch in full screen, speakers on, wait for the music, and be mesmerized:

Astronomer’s Paradise by Christoph Malin.

[H/T Phil]

This is a guest post by Neil Osborne about a terrific new program in Environmental Visual Communication at the Royal Ontario Museum. [Note from Sheril: Make sure to watch this stunning video.]

Solutions to long-term sustainability are not found solely in the realm of science. Environmental visual communication is an emerging field and its practitioners are key leaders who, through collaboration and deliverables, can build bridges between science and society. The ultimate goal is to motivate the public to care about and become active participants in saving our planet.

Positioned at the convergence of science and art, the Environmental Visual Communication program is designed to fill a recognized void of individuals who possess a blend of environmental science skills and the ability to effectively communicate to a variety of audiences.

Witness: Defining Conservation Photography Feature from Neil Ever Osborne.

With a focus on strategic messaging and technical savvy, you will learn to use photography, videography, multimedia and design principles to bridge environmental competencies with thoughtful communication through diverse media channels.

The program takes place in a truly unique learning environment – at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in downtown Toronto.

Throughout the Environmental Visual Communication (EVC) program, you will learn how to identify strategies to inform and educate, garner engagement and support, and build and share campaigns to address conservation issues.

Equipped with hybrid skills and a sense of active environmental stewardship, graduates of this innovative, integrated, and applied program will be able to connect ideas among diverse groups and tell compelling stories with fluency.

Learn more about the program and register here.

In addition to providing solar power to the University of Texas at Austin campus, this Webber Energy Group solar project installation will transmit real-time status and performance information for use by students and researchers.

Time lapse footage of Meridian Solar‘s installation of approximately 200 kW of solar panels on the university’s Facility Complex. This solar project incorporates state-of-the-art solar panels from Solar World and Ideal Power Converters inverter technology. Video by the lovely and talented Griffin Gardner.

According to a new survey released by the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of Americans (who have heard at least a little about the Keystone XL pipeline) support it:

There has been recent controversy over the building of the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands to refineries along the Gulf Coast, but the public is not following this issue very closely. Just 24% say they have heard a lot about it while another 39% have heard a little; 37% have heard nothing at all about the pipeline.

Among those who have heard at least a little, there is strong public support for building the pipeline. About two-thirds (66%) think the government should approve the building of the pipeline, while 23% say it should not be approved.

Republicans overwhelmingly support the building of the pipeline. Fully 84% say the government should approve the Keystone XL pipeline, including 88% of conservative Republicans.

Even among Democrats who have heard about the issue, a 49% plurality support the government approving the pipeline while 33% say it should not be approved. But there is a strong ideological division among Democrats; 63% of conservative and moderate Democrats support the building of the pipeline, compared with just 30% of liberal Democrats. A plurality of liberal Democrats (49%) say the pipeline should not be approved.

By a 66% to 27% margin, far more independents who have heard about the issue think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline than say it should not be approved. Independents who lean to the Republican Party overwhelmingly support the building of the pipeline (89% say it should be approved). But Democratic-leaning independents are far more divided; 46% say it should be approved, while 45% say it should not be approved.

Do you think the government should approve the Keystone XL pipeline?

Rising temperatures are bringing earlier migration patterns, according to a new study out of UNC Chapel Hill. Allen Hurlbert and Zhongfei Liang collected data using ebird–a citizen science program database containing 10 years’ worth of observations from amateur birdwatchers–which now includes over 48 million bird observations from about 35,000 contributors. By considering 18 species at various locations during migration, they concluded that on average, each reached various stopping points 0.8 days earlier per degree Celsius of temperature increase.

That may not sound like much, but as Hurlbert explains:

“Timing of bird migration is something critical for the overall health of bird species. They have to time it right so they can balance arriving on breeding grounds after there’s no longer a risk of severe winter conditions. If they get it wrong, they may die or may not produce as many young. A change in migration could begin to contribute to population decline, putting many species at risk for extinction.”

It’s an interesting analysis highlighting how little we know about the impacts of climate change. There are observable direct effects on behavior and survival, but it’s far more challenging to measure species interactions within the larger system.

Read the full article in PLoS ONE.

On most recent Science podcast, Kerry Klein interviewed Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Deborah Kaminskido about the gender breakdown among science and engineering faculty. When Kaminskido and her colleagues used publicly available data, she found gender disparity doesn’t appear to be quite as dramatic as she expected.

Across science and engineering–with the notable exception of mathematics–women seem to be staying at the same rates as male colleagues. Woman are also being promoted at the same approximate times (for women entering the system after 1990).

Kerry Klein: [W]hat do you think are the most important messages to take away from this?

Deborah Kaminski: Well, I think there’s several messages. One thing we haven’t talked about yet is the point-of-view of the academic administration. We have a very high rate of leaving [overall], so our retention in academia is low. We lose half our people in 11 years. Our start-up packages can be as high as one and a half million dollars. You’re investing in someone at the rate of $1.5 million, and in 11 years, half of them are gone. So this is an economic calculation that universities need to make. And I don’t think they’ve had this number before, this “11 year” number, to guide them in their judgment for what they have.

And the other thing we see is that it’s going to take a very long time, at the rate we’re going, to get women into the science and engineering faculties. That’s another major message.

The third message here is in the mathematics discipline, we actually have two problems there that are different from other disciplines. One of the problems is that we’re not retaining them as quickly as men, and, furthermore, in math, faculty leave even quicker than in other disciplines, like in physics or in chemistry or in electrical engineering. They’re leaving quicker in math. The women are leaving quicker than the men. And, in mathematics, what we have is that in the pool, it’s about 25% women in the Ph.D. pool, but only 20% of them are becoming assistant professors. So, when you put that all together, this really points to the need for another study on what’s happening in math.

Some of this is encouraging news. Some is not. From my perspective, academia has to fundamentally change if the goal is to retain more women. But it’s also important to remember that there are many ways to contribute in science beyond the traditional tenure-track trajectory.

In any case, you can listen to the podcast here.