The Island of Doubt

The latest news in what the journos are calling the "isotope crisis" reminds us why, even for the biggest supporters of Science Debate 2008, there's something more important than a scientifically literate president.

While I'm still in favor of the science blogosphere's new Mission: Impossible — convincing even a handful of presidential contenders to publicly exchange their thoughts on matters of science and technology — there is much to recommend the argument that choosing a candidate of integrity trumps the need to find someone who understands the laws of thermodynamics.

When the Canadian reactor (at right) that supplies half of the global supply of technetium-99 shut down a few weeks ago, medical diagnosticians in hospitals everywhere recoiled in horror over the realization that they might have to put countless tests on hold for lack of the radioactive tracer that makes such tests possible. Though the original fears of a two-month interruption have moderated somewhat with word the reactor might be churning out Tc-99 later this week, the political background to the story is still frightening.

Today we learn that the man Canada's conservative government recently put in charge of the reactor's operator isn't all that qualified for the job. According to the Globe and Mail:

The Conservative government rejected the findings of independent headhunters last year on the hiring of a new chair for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., picking instead a partisan fundraiser who abruptly left last week during the isotope crisis.

...

The first selection process was launched under the Liberal government of Paul Martin, but the nomination did not proceed because of the 2006 election. The incoming [Stephen] Harper government did not like the results of that process and launched a second one, which also recommended Mr. [Jean-Pierre] Soublière an Ottawa consultant who was linked to the Liberal Party of Canada [but who was also the acting chair of AECL in late 2005].

But the Tories refused to appoint Mr. Soublière. Instead, they nominated Michael Burns, a former executive vice-president at B.C. Gas and onetime fundraiser for the Canadian Alliance, a precursor to the Conservative Party.

I know Stephen Harper well enough. He's a clever and relatively learned guy, curious and smart. I have little concerns about his ability to absorb complex scientific issues, should he turn his mind to them. But as he has proved with his refusal to get with the climate change program, he cares more about politics than the real world. His government's willingness to let politics beat responsible management of one of the world's most important generators of medical isotopes is just another example of why we should care more about integrity than scientific literacy.

Tens of thousands of people's lives have been put at risk by the failure to keep the Chalk River reactor running. And it turns out that the safety concerns that prompted the nuclear regulator to order the shutdown have been known for some time. The fact that Harper originally tried to blame the previous Liberal government for the problem only shows how desperately guilty he knows his own government is.

When it comes to time to choose a candidate for each party's run at the White House next year, keep in mind the need for a leader with the decency to appoint capable bureaucrats, instead of party faithful, to oversee things like nuclear reactors. Sure, it would be nice if the next president of the United States could explain the difference between radiative forcings and feedbacks when it comes to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions — I'd almost certainly vote for someone who could. And I recognize that hardly anyone really expects the president to have a PhD in climatology, just a respect for the scientific process. But even that should be of secondary concern in this technocratic era. What's been missing these past seven years is a president with the integrity to surround himself and fill his administration with people with the knowledge, experience and decency to do the right thing.

Could we can find someone who meets both criteria? I'd say that's asking a lot. So if I have to choose, I'll go with integrity.