Living in the land of 10,000 lakes, Minnesotans know the importance of water. This is reflected in the Walz administration’s recent protection act to halt non-iron (nonferrous) mining in the Boundary Waters. Yet, this protection act is impermanent, and a future Minnesota governing body could overturn it.

Within the last 10 years alone, nonferrous mining has been banned and reinstated multiple times, typically shifting with the governing power at both federal and state levels. Mining proponents often point to increasing critical mineral demands used for technology and job opportunities, while opponents are concerned about water pollution from heavy metals. Understanding the scientific basis of candidates’ viewpoints is important because it impacts policy decisions like mining in the Boundary Waters and the future of water in this state.

Unfortunately, there isn’t enough accessible, nonpartisan information for voters to know how candidates will approach the science and technology issues that affect their lives. Candidates aren’t always incentivized to discuss or even think about their positions on science-related issues. When science does come up during election cycles, the rhetoric around it can be polarized and politicized.

Related: Walz actions setting precedents for next governor in Boundary Waters fight

However, despite the politicization of science, a majority of both liberals and conservatives feel that government investment in scientific research is worthwhile for society. Regardless of party, Americans value science. Candidates should be encouraged to consider and lay out their positions on key science issues in a concrete and nuanced way so voters are empowered to make informed decisions.

So, a group of early career scientists formed the nonpartisan, volunteer-based Stance on Science initiative to help get information to voters. We’re climbing down from ivory towers and paywalled articles full of jargon and asking candidates to consider complex issues so everyone can have more nuanced, informed election discussions. Our task is simple: ask candidates about science issues that matter to Minnesota, then share those responses with voters. Our six questions cover a lot of marshy ground: mining in the Boundary Waters watershed, forever chemicals and water quality, data centers, drug overdose prevention, and some (dry yet important) questions about research funding and trust in science.

As people who swim in both facts and uncertainty for a living, scientists have an extra responsibility to the public to communicate clearly. Stance on Science is sharing candidate responses online, free of charge and unedited. We’re trying to make it easy to parse and compare candidates’ responses. And since digestible information starts with concrete, meaningful information, we distilled science questions into specific issues that resonate with Minnesotans.

These issues matter because science reaches far beyond labs and petri dishes: research boosts the economy, helps find new treatments and cures, and provides information to inform resource use, environmental remediation and public health. Local, state and national  representatives elected this November will influence research funding and how scientific data is used to address key challenges facing Minnesotans.

Related: In an age of climate disaster, more states offer students a way to show they are ‘climate literate’

It’s essential that voters are informed on candidates’ stances on science-related issues and how they intend to use scientific evidence to guide their policy decisions. Dozens of candidates from across the political divide have taken the time to share their stance on these issues, showing that science policy conversations can in fact transcend partisan politics and are worth both candidates’ and voters’ time and consideration.  

Wading through science policy is inherently complicated. Take data centers, which can affect many parts of voters’ lives — water and environment, technology and artificial intelligence, electricity, land use, economics, geopolitics – even agriculture. Future decisions on mining in the Boundary Waters watershed will also have complicated scientific influences, from environmental reviews and permitting to technology advancements, with equally complex repercussions reaching far beyond science. But the hard part should not be knowing candidates’ positions on these issues when it’s time to vote. 

We’re asking about “science,” yes – but most importantly, we’re asking about Minnesota’s future. Sharing candidate stances on science policy alongside existing debates, panels, and platforms is only part of the solution. But it’s a necessary step to facilitate engaged, informed, and empowered elections. We hope you join us in asking more of our candidates and learning about their positions through Stance on Science this election season.

Amanda Scharenbrock and Emma Sol Taylor-Brill are Ph.D. candidates in the molecular, cellular, developmental biology and genetics program at the University of Minnesota, where Kenna McRae is a Ph.D. candidate in biomedical engineering. All three are volunteers for Stance on Science Minnesota.

The post It’s time to bring back science in campaign policy discussions appeared first on MinnPost.

This post was shared from MinnPost.