Science is beginning to outpace our global policymaking apparatus so rapidly that the situation is posing serious challenges to democracy.

Local screenwriter Shawn Otto, who wrote House of Sand and Fog, has another treatment in development about wild rice. Perfect for Minnesota, right? You would think so. Slam dunk.

It’s the media’s job to be a check and balance on the government and hold them accountable for what they do. But if the media isn’t doing that and people are getting bad information, how are they supposed to govern?

Denying science and reality should, in principle, be non-partisan. No general political orientation should be more or less predisposed to it.

Five different bills have popped up in four different states designed to challenge the teaching of evolutionary biology and global climate change. These bills display similar language, which suggests a common source.

Several producers with Minnesota ties are already perusing the Range as a primary location, including Minneapolis-based Christine Walker and her business partner Shawn Lawrence Otto, who wrote the screenplay for the 2003 Oscar-nominated drama "House of Sand and Fog."

We can no longer afford to seclude science in an ivory tower. As Shawn Lawrence Otto repeatedly demonstrates in his book Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, our day-to-day existence is now deeply marinated in science.

There is a growing trend in the U.S.: creationist influence. Galloping dumbing down, to be more precise.

Popular wisdom says certain beloved books can't be made into movies. Yet there are a surprising number of great outcomes.

Shawn Otto's ScienceDebate.org forced both campaigns to answer piercing questions.

American democracy is slipping off its “foundation of science,” said Shawn Lawrence Otto.

It is important that we recognize what beliefs are important enough to debate in the first place.

Climate change has been virtually a non-issue during the presidential campaign — but it's primed to take a higher profile, says Shawn Lawrence Otto.

These days, everyone wants to talk with Shawn Otto — Rolling Stone, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Ira Flatow of Science Friday. Why? Because of Otto's book, Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America.

Obama Surrogate Kevin Knobloch and Republican Mike Castle join co-moderators Shawn Otto and Chris Mooney on Capitol Hill

Friday evening, October 26th, 2012, author Shawn Lawrence Otto will deliver the 60th lecture in a series that has previously been given by Abraham Maslow, Buckminster Fuller, Albert Ellis, Steve Allen, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Karl H. Pribram, Sherry Turkle, and others.

Though plenty has been written about science and politics, there’s lots of fresh food for thought and discussion in the October 17 Scientific American piece: Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy.

The latest issue (November 2012) of Scientific American has an excellent and very timely article by Shawn Lawrence Otto.

Science and politics: What would the Founding Fathers say?

Co-founder of sciencedebate.org discussed the disconnect between science and politics.

I don’t often tell readers about articles that they simply have to read, but this pair qualifies.

The United States faced down authoritarian governments on the left and right. Now it may be facing an even greater challenge from within.

Scientists can also educate themselves about the history and nature of the political neglect of science by reading Shawn Lawrence Otto's articulate and compelling book Fool me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America

According to Shawn Otto, ScienceDebate.org head honcho, it’s because “they’re stuck in 20th century thinking.” Otto adds, “… It’s taking them time to realize we’re in a new century – the century of science…..” The unwillingness of the candidates to address science as a debate topic is all the more ironic because the current president says he’s a strong supporter of science.

Otto will speak about "science and antiscience in the US elections."

Otto will speak about "science and antiscience in the US elections."

ScienceDebate.org chief Shawn Otto reports both presidential candidates will answer more than a dozen science policy questions posed by the organization, which is sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and other science groups.

If you are a constituent of one of the following Members of Congress, please contact the Member's office and ask them to respond to the ScienceDebate and Scientific American questionnaire immediately.

Three generations of the Otto family, all Eagle Scouts, stand on the bridge built by Jacob Otto for his Eagle Scout project.

This seminar will provide a behind-the-scenes view of how the public, politicians, and media are ignoring the very solutions we need most in order to prosper in a science-driven era. Tuition includes refreshments.

A quest to get more discussion about science and scientific issues in the run-up to this year’s presidential election in the U.S, is starting to get noticed.

It’s again an uphill fight, but a worthwhile one, and somebody’s got to undertake it: a number of science groups are again backing efforts to see science issues, including climate science, gain more traction in this year’s presidential campaigns.

If you want to see Obama and Romney devote time to addressing important questions about science and science policy in a publicly televised debate, you're going to have to fight for it.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have been asked to respond to the questionnaire in approximately one month.

Neither presidential candidate has placed much emphasis on science or environmental issues, so a coalition of U.S. scientists is taking them to task.

Science Debate is trying to get President Obama and Mitt Romney to treat science with at least the kind of seriousness politicians give their religious beliefs.

These questions really need to be posed by knowledgeable questioners who are in a position to ask well-focused follow-up questions when candidates give less-than-illuminating answers.

Scientific American is partnering with the folks at ScienceDebate.org and more than a dozen leading science and engineering organizations to try to inject more discussion about critical science issues into the U.S. presidential election campaign this year.

Even though we often hear of faith opposing science in the political arena, these findings show that that perception isn’t necessarily true.

Protesters taking to the extreme against their opponents posing problems for democratic civil discourse.

Just from that title you might be tempted to leap to the conclusion that you’ve “been there, done that, bought the T-shirt”, and therefore convince yourself that you can skip this one. I would urge you to reconsider and watch it.

Chatting with “Science Friday” host Ira Flatow will be Science Debate co-founder Shawn Otto and former Congressman Vern Ehlers, R-Mich., who is a physicist and a co-chairman of Science Debate’s advisory board.

I wanted to explore the idea of having State-level Science Debates within Minnesota among candidates running here for federal office, but also, and especially, for state office.

The stigma against science in modern politics threatens the American democratic process.

This book is a good primer on science in American society, and I think provides people with a view that ought to be considered.

Shawn Lawrence Otto wrote the responsible piece on the story of the NASA 49 propaganda stunt.

Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America by Shawn Otto has won the prestigious Minnesota Book Award. The award is very well deserved.

In addition to undercutting the teaching of evolution, the proposals would require public school science classes to teach that global warming is doubtful, unproven. What's next? No science of any sort allowed in public schools?

I encourage you to pop over to Shawn Otto's blog below and read “A Message from a Republican Meteorologist on Climate Change,” a guest post in which Paul Douglas, an experienced meteorologist, energy entrepreneur and founder of the Web site Weather Nation, explains that acknowledging evidence of a growing human influence on climate “doesn’t make you a liberal.”

When Shawn Lawrence Otto wrote his book “Fool Me Twice,” I featured him in this MinnPost space. I have never been able to shake the central premise of his book: all knowledge is anti-authoritarian.