My column from the latest issue of Seed just went up. It's a rather ambitious one, laying out a five step plan for restoring scientific integrity in Washington, D.C. You can read the piece to see all of the steps that I propose, but so far, it's clear that Congressional Democrats are excelling at one above all others: Investigations and oversight. By contrast, when it comes to the final step that I suggest--"Learn From Their Mistakes"--I don't see as much evidence as I would like that Democrats really get it.
My own view is that if the Democrats are really going to save science from rampant political abuse in the long term--and restore honor and dignity to our national conversation about science and policy--they must to do much more than hold hearings to expose wrongdoing. They must go further and articulate a powerful, positive vision of the role of science in society, in decision-making, and in democracy--and then back up that plan with a real agenda for science in the 21st century. That's what I'm really waiting for--and I haven't seen it yet.
In the meantime, check out the piece.
- Log in to post comments
One major problem is that very few members of the House and Senate have a science background. If more members had such a background, the ravings of know-nothings like Imhofe and Barton would attract less attention.
It struck me that many of Chris' very good suggested remedies for Democrats also make sense if one changes one word throughout: "Democrat" to "journalist"
A few samples from his piece:
"journalists are skilled at recognizing, above all else, hypocrisy [except when it comes to themselves], and even minor slipups could generate "Journalists are just as bad" stories.
Journalists need to avoid, for example, incautious statements that link global warming to individual weather events or that overplay debatable evidence about its impact on severe storms like hurricanes."
"we [journalists] must avoid opportunism and remain evenhanded in criticizing those who go beyond what the evidence can support.
"A good rule of thumb is never to make too much out of a single study. And never [ever!!] speculate . Instead, rely on major, peer-reviewed scientific assessment reports [and only after they come out -- No guessing before what they might say]."
I suspect the last one may be the hardest rule of all to follow -- for journalists, if not Democrats.
Unfortunately, mainstream journalists in this country have not been innocent bystanders with regard to the political abuse of science. They have acted as facilitators -- in some cases unwittingly (in an attempt at "balance", for example), in others willingly.
I wish to retract the word "mainstream" (in "mainstream journalists") from my above post.
What Chris said about journ...(I mean Democrats) applies to bloggers and others as well (to an even greater extent on some issues -- eg, speculation)
Ayyup, there aren't many trained scientists in Congress. You can count the scientists in Congress on one hand. As the lawyer/lobbyist game flucuates, you may need two hands or possibly no hands.
There are, however, more than ONE HUNDRED LAWYERS in the senate, and approximately TWO HUNDRED LAWYERS in the House.
Isn't this a critical variable in the discussion about horseshit in the stable?
There is one opening in the House that the public needs to take advantage of. That is freshman Rep. Jerry McNerney (phd Math, U of New Mexico.. Wind Energy Consultant). Right now, the House Democrats are giving him a lot of attention, as they want to hold onto his seat (6& Republican advantage in his district. CA 11). He was appointed to a panel on Global Warming. He probably "get it."
Re Wes Rolley & gerald spezio
Unfortunately, the Republicans in the House reacted in the opposite manner. Two GOP representatives with science backgrounds, Vernon Ehlers and Roscoe Bartlett applied for membership on the Global Warming committee and were turned down by the GOP House leadership because of alleged lack of enthusiasm for global warming denial.
Gerald,
Indeed the "lots of lawyers in government and few scientists" issue is highly relevant, particularly since so many lawyers have a fundamentally different way of viewing and dealing with the world.
It's really a training (and perhaps self-selection) issue.
A good scientist waits until he/she has accumulated a lot of factual evidence -- and weighed each piece -- before drawing any conclusions. Scientists seek to discover and explain the way that nature works. They do this by looking at all th evidence, since the smallest piece my hold the key. They will never discover the "ultimate truth" (not how science works, at any rate), but if they are diligent and open-minded, they will get ever-better approximations.
A lawyer (even the best of them), on the other hand, is trained to adopt a basic premise (eg, guilt or innocence) at the very start and then go cherry-picking for "facts" that support his/her case, ignoring/discarding those that do not. It matters little (if at all) what the "truth" is.
If we can't elect scientists to Congress, we at least have to elect lawyers who are open to the scientific mindset. Luckily, there are some already in Congress, Henry Waxman, for example.