My last post was about whistleblower Susan Wood, and her apparent reluctance to explain why access to Plan B emergency contraception is being held up within the administrative bowels of the Food and Drug Administration. Wood seemed hesitant to offer a political explanation for what is, unmistakably, a political phenomenon.
Now I'd like to move on to a related case: David Baltimore, distinguished scientist, Nobel laureate, and president of CalTech. If Susan Wood seemed to shy away from explaining the root causes of the war on science, Baltimore has offered a causal explanation that, to put it frankly, leaves me a bit puzzled.
Baltimore spoke recently at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in St. Louis, where he not only denounced the administration for abusing science, but propounded a theory for why this might be happening. As Nature reported:
Speaking last Saturday to a packed conference room, Baltimore - the president-elect of the AAAS - urged scientists to challenge perceived censorship of their research. Tensions between the Bush administration and researchers have been high for years, but Baltimore said he had recently grown convinced that the problem cannot be shrugged off as the usual battles between science and politics.
"It is no accident that we are seeing such extensive suppression of science," he said. "It is part of a theory of government, and I believe it is a theory that we must vociferously oppose." In particular, Baltimore condemned the "unitary executive" theory of government - the notion that a president can bypass Congressional and judicial oversight and run the country single-handedly (see page 891). Baltimore argued that this approach threatens to undermine the independence of science conducted under the auspices of the federal government.
Unitary executive? I suppose that Bush's view of the exercise of presidential power does lead to a very controlling approach to governing the federal agencies, and I can see how this would in turn lend itself to tensions between scientists within these agencies and their political minders. I can also see how a lack of congressional oversight contributes to a worsening of the problem. But let's bear in mind that this lack of oversight isn't coming from the executive branch, it's the fault of Congress, which is going along all too unquestioningly.
In any case, I'm afraid I don't think Baltimore has offered the most parsimonious explanation for the so-called "war on science" that we're seeing right now. I for one am much more satisfied by an explanation that goes straight at the political roots of the phenomenon.
The so-called "war on science" has many causes. I've singled out the growth of conservative think tanks as one of them. Another, I suspect, is the increasing number of political appointees within the federal government. These factors explain as much as, if not more than, Baltimore's "unitary executive" explanation.
However, when it comes to getting to the source of what's driving the Bush administration, I think one factor tends to swamp all the others: politics. There's simply no doubt that the groups being appeased by the administration's attacks on science--religious conservatives and industry--are key components of the Republican base, making the "war on science" the by-product of a kind of spoils system. We don't need to appeal to a "unitary executive" theory of governance in order to grasp this blatant political fact.
Let's keep it simple, huh?
- Log in to post comments
I think you are focusing on the mechanisms by which Republicans wage the War on Science, while Baltimore is focusing on the underlying motivations (i.e., psychology of ideology). He calls it "unitary executive" - I call it Conservatism, which, among else, includes a strongly hierarchical worldview that, at the top levels of the government, can be described as a deep psychological need to implement "unitary executive".
"Unitary Executive" is a concept devised by some lawyer named John Yoo (google him, it'll scare you badly) and joyfully embraced by the reactionary right (I refuse to call them conservatives--they are no such thing!). In essence it gives to the president virtually unfettered license to abrogate the Constitution if he deems the United States to be threatened. Uh, can you say "dictatorial powers?" I knew you could. What better than a War on Terror to justify stomping all over "just a g-d piece of paper," as W is reported to have snarled when the unconstitutionality of his actions was mentioned to him in a meeting. (The report is unattributed, but given the other evidence, I find it all too credible.)
So far this has given us the NSA snoopery business, Dick Cheney's power to classify or declassify information, and all the other sub-rosa shenanigans. This Yoo person was also involved in the redefinition of torture allowing the inhumanity exhibited in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and Afganistan (and who knows where else).
So you see, the Unitary Executive formulation is a danger to far more than the freedom of communication that is oxygen to science, and I can see how David Baltimore would feel compelled to mention it. What the Beloved Leader does not like must be suppressed.
The armies of the night are on the march. . . Isaac Asimov must be revolving in his grave.
It's not the "Unitary Executive"/dictator concept that provides motive to distort science. It might provide some power, but not motive. And the power of a dictator is not needed to do this. A lot of the motive is coming from religion -- the religious right -- from plan B contraception to stem cells to Intelligent Design we see the religious motives of fundamentalists at work.
We can see this power when Samuel Alito sent James Dobson a profuse thank you note for getting him on the supreme court:
Here's the letter:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/alito-sends-james-dobson-_…
Still, there is the problem of empiricism. Wanting power does not have to contradict reality. In fact, recognizing reality might help you obtain power. What we also have here is a case of believing your own PR.
Sure, the conservatives simply deny reality whenever it doesn't forward their agenda. But how do they come up with their agenda? Not empirically, that's for sure. Reality is what benefits them. That's how facts are determined.
Far too often, when they deny global warming, they actually believe what they're saying. It's not just opportunism. It's bubble-boy, think-tank, circle jerking, where a bunch of really intelligent guys get in a room and figure out what reality should be rather than what it is.
Baltimore is right. Under the "unitary executive" theory of government, both Congress and the Judiciary are neutered - all political decisions being promulgated by the Executive. Since Science today is largely dependent on government funding, if the UE theory prevails, we will essentially have Science by fiat. Of course in that case the very definition of Science may change, hostage to the leanings of the current Emperor.
I think Baltimore is absolutely right. Don't get thrown by the terminology. The reason that science is bad is because *any* contrary opinion to the party line of those who are in power (who are occupying the `executive' branch because that's the least democratic branch of government, with only one elected individual) is wrong & needs to be marginalized. The war on science is part & parcel with the war on the judiciary, the increase in power for the executive, and the need for perpetual military war in order to maintain heightened executive privilege.
China had a war on science too, during their Cultural Revolution. They gave up after 15 years of falling desperately behind technologically, thus the liberalization (at least for the universities and industry) that took place there in the 1980s. I'm afraid the same pattern may happen to the US, though the US response when it starts falling behind technologically & losing our/their position of military strength may be much more dangerous.
Note that this relates to my post on your previous post -- the desire for absolute centralized control is true in their personal sphere as well as the political.