I want to get back to reply to this comment:
Comments
The
Bush administration has not been against science in any conceivable
way. I hate to see people use a lie to push a political cause. I would
ask all those concerned with the advancement of science to stay true to
the calling of using empirically backed reason to further our
understanding of the universe. We should also be more prudent in how we
as scientists enter public discourse. Many scientists today have
resorted to crying wolf instead of laying out clearly what we know and
what we don't. The global warming
debate is one area where scientists
have gone too far in entering the realm of politics in the name of
science. It is shameful and intellectually dishonest to paint a picture
of what is happening that extends far beyond what we know. If we sell
our discipline for political ends we will lose forever our voice of
empirical based reason.Posted by: simon | href="http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2006/07/the_profud_administration_1.php#comment-125530">July
2, 2006 01:25 PM
rel="tag">Abel Pharmboy put up a
href="http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/index.htm">link
that effectively dispels the first point, that the Bush administration
has not been anti-science, so I won't belabor that issue.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has
href="http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/science_idol/">collected
some data on the subject as well.
- Tom Toles, Washington Post:
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/tolesv1.html?name=Toles&date=20040220"
target="_blank">Cartoon One, href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/tolesv1.html?name=Toles&date=20050614"
target="_blank">Cartoon Two, href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/tolesv1.html?name=Toles&date=20050627"
target="_blank">Cartoon Three, href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html?name=Toles&date=02022006"
target="_blank">Cartoon Four - Steve Sack, Minneapolis Star Tribune:
href="http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/pccartoons/archives/sack.asp?Action=GetImage"
target="_blank">Cartoon One (select 3/1/04) - Dan Wasserman, The Boston Globe:
href="http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/pccartoons/archives/wasserman.asp?Action=GetImage"
target="_blank">Cartoon One (select 1/30/06) - Nick Anderson, The Houston Chronicle:
href="http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/pccartoons/archives/andersonNICK.asp?Action=GetImage"
target="_blank">Cartoon One (select 1/31/06) - Gary Trudeau, Doonesbury:
href="http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060305"
target="_blank">Cartoon One
The third point in the comment deserves some additional treatment:
"We
should also be
more prudent in how we
as scientists enter public discourse."
It is hard to respond
to that specifically, without knowing what entry (or entries) into public
discourse he deemed to be imprudent. If we assume that Simon
was referring specifically to global warming, I think it would be
helpful to look at how and why "scientists" entered into the public
discourse on the subject, before deciding whether it was shameful or
dishonest.
First of all, not all scientists jumped into the debate at the same
time. (Talking about "scientists" collectively is sort of
like talking about "the terrorists" collectively; they are not a
monolithic group, so using the collective term is potentially
misleading.) In most cases, scientists each decided,
separately, whether or not to speak up. Each decided whether
the extant evidence was sufficiently worrisome to warrant a public
statement. For some, the threshold was fairly low.
They are the ones who spoke up first. Others waited
until the evidence was greater. Others are still waiting.
One could argue that the first ones to speak up were being shameful and
dishonest. However, one also could argue, that those who are
still waiting to speak up are shameful and dishonest. I don't
know of any objective way for us to determine what someone else's
threshold "should" be. In fact, I think that no one has any
business telling someone else what his or her threshold should be.
There may have been a few instances of truly dishonest or shameful
behavior. For example, someone might have taken a scanty
shred of evidence, and written a book, trying to make profit, while
inwardly believing that the case was not substantiated. That
may have happened on both sides of the debate. That's hard to
say, though, because it is hard to know what someone else believes
inwardly.
The reason I go on at such length about this, is that the wording of
Simon's comment seemed to me to imply that it was a common occurrence
for scientists to join in political discourse inappropriately.
While there may be a few isolated instances of such behavior,
I don't see any evidence that it is widespread. I certainly
don't see anything to substantiate an allegation that "Many scientists
today have
resorted to crying wolf."
- Log in to post comments
Yes, heaven forbid that some of the brightest and most well informed members of society should influence policy with their critical thinking skills and well-supported evidence.
It's scary how many policy makers refuse to let mere facts get in their way.
Joseph, I'd add that scientists and physicians staying out of the political debate during the Reagan and Bush, Sr. administrations led to the worst decline in national funding for biomedical research since Nixon declared the War on Cancer. We all need to have a voice in political discussions that influence policies and funding, but all must be careful not to "cry wolf" or come off as entirely self-serving.
Unfortunately, it is often the media (again, as amorphous as "the scientists" or "the terrorists") that misinterprets or overstates the case of scientists. As with any issue, a comprehensive understanding will require detailed analysis of facts, nothing that is amenable to sound bites.