Politics and Science

As it's President's Day and I plan on seizing the opportunity to get some writing done, I won't be blogging much. But I will leave you with something very worth of contemplation on the subject of how scientists can sucessfully combat attacks on their expertise and various assorted misinformation campaigns. As it turns out, my friend and sometime co-author Matthew Nisbet just presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science about this. Read here for his full message, but let me list the take-home points in bullet form: 1. SCIENCE EDUCATION REMAINS CENTRALLY IMPORTANT.2.…
As many bloggers have noticed, with the latest revelations about NASA and other agencies, the Republican war on science continues apace. But what's driving it? Clearly, the acts of scientific censorship that have made so much news lately have been coming from political appointees in press or public affairs offices. This fits the thesis of my book, according to which such political appointees are conditioned and trained to act in such a way as to appease the Republican base: corporate American on the one hand, and the religious right on the other. Allow GOP political appointees to appease the…
There were some serious fireworks at the House Committee on Science today. John Marburger got nailed several times for his wholly unsatisfactory response to repeated charges of science abuse and suppression by this administration. Meanwhile, Dana Rohrabacher proved that he's just as out of it now as he was back during the Gingrich years, when he declared global warming to be "liberal claptrap." I encourage you to watch the webcast here. Some highlights, with minutes provided: 56:55-57:25: Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert emphasizes that global warming is a serious issue, and states his…
I don't know a great deal about particulate pollution. But I am nevertheless not at all surprised that we're now having a political science fight over this subject. After all: 1) it's an environmental issue; 2) it's one where lots of industry dollars hinge upon what regulatory framework the EPA adopts; and 3) that regulatory framework in turn depends in part upon scientific information, much of which is, typically, rife with uncertainty. Add into that mix 4) the Bush administration, and it's pretty easy to predict what you're going to get. Anyway, the details on the latest battle can be…
Via Tara, I see that a major media organ has finally contrasted Bush's "I Heart Science" message in his SOTU speech with the reality of how science has been treated in this administration: Starting when he was a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush has often assured voters that his policymaking would be guided by "sound science." Last week, in his State of the Union address, the President pointed to scientific research as the way to "lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come." Yet growing numbers of researchers, both in and out of government, say their…
By now everyone has heard of George Deutsch, the creationist-friendly whippersnapper who decided he could tell James Hansen what to say and what not to say. Has ever a greater scientist had a less worthy oppressor? It's hard to think of an example. PZ and John Lynch have more on Deutsch; he's all over the blogosphere now, famous in a way that I hope I will never be. I don't have much more to say about Andy Revkin's latest big scoop in the Times, except for the following recommendation to would-be NASA censors: Check out this agency website. It is chock full of offensive scientific facts that…
NASA whistleblower and leading climate scientist James Hansen has become more and more unmuzzled: He went on NPR's "On Point" yesterday and really didn't hold back. You should listen to the whole interview, but I must say that from my perspective, I found one part particularly interesting. At around minute 26:30, Hansen is comparing political control of scientific information in this administration to the way things worked in previous administrations (of which he was a part). Here's the gist: What I see is an increasing control of what scientists are able to say. There are political…
One response I got from readers of The Republican War on Science was that the book depressed and outraged them, but provided little release, and didn't devote adequate energy to proposing positive solutions to the problems I had identified. I fully understand where this reaction is coming from, and began trying to address it in my column in the latest issue of Seed, available here. There are many things that can be done to address the problem of science politicization and abuse, but certainly part of the burden falls on scientists themselves. They must work much harder to communicate their…
It has been widely noted that U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, who's in electoral trouble in 2006, has been distancing himself from his old buddies in the ID movement. Santorum has flip flopped on the closely linked questions of whether ID counts as science and whether it should be taught in public school classes, and he's backed away from the Dover case (which was set in his home state). But Santorum isn't going to get off that easy. The senator's close ties to the ID movement remain, and they're fully in evidence at this link. It goes to the Amazon.com page for a forthcoming book celebrating the…
Yesterday, extending a public debate that I participated in earlier in the week, I criticized some arguments by Reason's Ron Bailey and started to criticize some writings by the Discovery Institute's Wesley Smith. I'm pretty much done with Bailey (see our exchange here), with whom I really don't disagree all that much. But I have more to say about Smith's arguments on the stem cell issue. In my previous post, I left off by objecting to Smith's attempt to create what I view as a false opposition between adult and embryonic stem cell research. There's much more to say here. In particular, I'd…
The three way debate/discussion on science and politics hosted by the Smith Family Foundation on Tuesday night was an interesting event, to say the least. It was in some ways a difficult discussion for me, because the other participants, Ronald Bailey and Wesley Smith, are much more inclined than I to mix it up about the ethics of different kinds of research, especially when it comes to future biomedical advances and whether they should go forward without restriction. I, on the other hand, simply take the stance that while ethical viewpoints may differ, that's no excuse for either side to…
If an alien from Mars arrived on Earth, visited the United States, and wanted to understand the issues that exist at the intersection of politics and science in this country, he, she, or it would have a problem. You see, there are two popular books out that have garnered significant public attention and that purport to address this topic. Unfortunately, they come from diametrically opposed perspectives, and reach irreconcilably different conclusions. One book, as you may have guessed, is my own, The Republican War on Science. The other is Tom Bethell's Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.…