Ending The War On Science

I've already explained I'm nonpartisan. I support R's and D's across the Hill for a myriad of reasons. That said, I've been observing firsthand the way funding for innovative scientific research has been repeatedly cut throughout the current administration's reign. In 2002, I spent months preparing a proposal for the 2002 EPA STAR Fellowship application (the only federally-funded graduate fellowships dedicated to environmental research), only to learn funding had been suspended after submitting my project. I've watched friends struggle to find grants to make it through another semester and am sick and tired of how frequently amazing proposals are turned down. I've flipped through the pages of NOAA's budget for FY2007 alongside NASA and DOD counterparts and looked at the laughable difference in figures.

i-15bf657c36e264f81c114c653af2d1a0-dave2.JPGThen in May of 2006, I lost a wonderful friend, David, in a war costing a trillion dollars -- an individual who was poised to become a leader in conservation had he returned from Iraq -- who remains the most promising young scientist I've worked with. Obviously, I strongly support our troops, a separate issue from the war altogether, but it's worth pointing out that half of all discretionary spending is now military. Our tax dollars would be better spent by increasing energy efficiency, renewable energy, and doing some good around the world that would improve relations with our neighbors. My allegiances in the 2008 presidential election will be influenced tremendously by an emphasis on science and integrity.

When I chatted with Hillary last year, I was impressed with her intelligence. Her speech last week leaves me hopeful, optimistic, and encouraged that science and innovation might very well become a national priority again.

When science is politicized, when the truth is subjugated by ideology, it's worse than wrong -- it's dangerous. Ending the war on science and once again valuing the ever-skeptical but always hopeful scientific enterprise is about more than our economy. It's about more than our security. It is about our democracy.

More like this

Hey Sheril,
Thanks for kicking off Hillary week...I am really sorry to hear about David. Hadn't before.

One of the issues I want to bring up over the course of the week is how Hillary has so closely conjoined two issues: scientific integrity, and scientific innovation. Is the link between them really that close, or should these be thought of as separate spheres in the science policy orbit?

Stand by for my thoughts on that. But first, because I know readers will just love it, I'm gonna talk about how Hillary (gasp) "frames" science....

While I do think that maintaining an unrivaled system of defense remains imperative to our nations security, for too long we have kept our military machine running unnecessarily at full throttle. By diverting tax dollars away from fighting and towards research that will ultimately benefit all humanity, we will regain our status as a global leader. To build a better future we have to think and act now--to me it seems that the DOD has somehow forgotten the mistakes of our past, despite the fact that they seem to be living in it. It is a tragedy every time we lose one of our friends. In a way, by placing his image on your blog, you giving your readers a glimpse into the life your friend would have wanted us to see. I am sure he would thank you for showing him to us at his best.

Sheril, I am deeply sorry for you loosing a close friend such as David. I am deeply sorry as well for the conservation world for loosing such a promising individual. The way he set out his NSF GK-12 introduction speaks for itself - his work would undoubtedly have had a ripple effect (I admire people who take the time to take their "passion for science into the classroom and getting young kids really excited about science". There is little one can say to comfort David's friends and family. But I believe that his passing away should not be in vain and I can only hope this sparks people to pressurize governments such as the US and elsewhere to rethink their priorities.

By Johnny Wilson (not verified) on 08 Oct 2007 #permalink

It's certainly nice to see someone actually talking about science in a positive light, and a more balanced, non-partisan approach to science-flavoured issues would certainly be good news for everyone within and without the US. But from the perspective of actual scientists, chasing grants, it's all about budgets: for example, whilst the UK government clearly isn't as actively anti-science as the current US administration often appears to be, a tight research budget compared to the number of applicants means that even top-rated research proposals find themselves losing out.

I too am sorry to hear about your friend. It is always a tragedy when a promising life is cut short.

In many ways, we do live in scary times where politics influences science in negative ways but this is obviously not the first time that science has been pressured from outside influences to suppress certain kinds of information.

In fact, I'd say that the majority of scientific history is shaped by these forces (usually negative unfortunately): from the Aristotelian dogma of the church during the middle ages, to the eugenics movement popularized by the Nazis during the 30s and 40s.

It is important to paradoxically savor the times we live in for their relative freedom of perusing scientific research and also keep vigilant to ensure that darker times are not repeated.

Sheril, I'm so sorry to hear about your friend, it deeply pains me to see this war resulting in the death of people who obviously had so much to contribute to positive change.

You always choose the perfect song Sheril. Black Eyed Peas came to mind before I clicked the link. If only more scientists and journalists were as in touch with culture aka real life.

I feel the weight of the world on my shoulder
As I'm gettin' older, y'all, people gets colder
Most of us only care about money makin'
Selfishness got us followin' our wrong direction
Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria
Kids wanna act like what they see in the cinema
Yo', whatever happened to the values of humanity
Whatever happened to the fairness in equality
Instead in spreading love we spreading animosity
Lack of understanding, leading lives away from unity

Another sad reminder that we've been ignoring the war on science by focusing on the war on (well, on what I'm not sure). I'm sorry about David. His bio from the NSF link is inspiring and he was an individual who would have surely made great contributions to science and conservation.

Exactly Sheril and D.
These lines too:

"Nations dropping bombs
Chemical gases filling lungs of little ones
With ongoing suffering
As the youth die young
So ask yourself is the loving really strong?
So I can ask myself really what is going wrong
With this world that we living in
People keep on giving in
Makin wrong decisions
Only visions of them livin and
Not respecting each other
Deny thy brother
The wars' going on but the reasons' undercover
The truth is kept secret
Swept under the rug
If you never know truth
Then you never know love"

Simon, I've begun to think of it as the war on peace. IMHO the Bush regime's behavior can only be explained as an effort to create a more-or-less permanent enemy that successor administrations will be obligated to keep fighting whether they want to or not.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 08 Oct 2007 #permalink

Why is it that this post only discusses the federal budget? Aside from the issues you raise about the DOD and the "War on Terror", I think you might address the question of where scientists can get money other than from the federal government, whose moral and legal role in supporting scientific research is always political - in other words, inherently nonobjective. Rather than wade through the murky waters of what research deserves to be funded at the expense of taxpayers who may or may not support it (or the researcher), shouldn't scientists be looking for ways to further separate ourselves from politics, e.g. by cutting the purse strings?

As a former Hillary constituent, I find her interest in science - and particularly in environmental science (since I am an environmental scientist) to be refreshing. While I was a grad student working in the St. Lawrence River in northern New York, Hillary came up for a tour of the region. The director of the station took her on a fairly long (for a politician - 2 or 3 hours, I think) spin around the river, discussing both the environmental and economic concerns of the Thousand Islands. Although I wasn't on the boat, word through the grapevine was that she was interested and engaged in the discussion, with lots of questions. Of course, upstate NY has also been lucky enough to have some other science supporters in their delegation - Sherry Boehlert being the biggest, I would venture.

I would also note that the war on the war on science is and should be a non-partisan venture, led by Hillary and other Congresspeople with strong science backgrounds and a history of supporting science (my nominee for General on the House side: Vern Ehlers of Grand Rapids, Michigan).

By a former Hilla… (not verified) on 08 Oct 2007 #permalink

Following up on "a former Hillary constituent" about electing a Congress that knows science, click my name for a blog entry I cited a couple of weeks ago about Bill Foster, a talented Ph.D. physicist running for Hastert's seat, whose mentor professor at Harvard (now at B.U.) is a friend and undergrad classmate of mine.

Quoth the mentor: "Bill has a recessive gene for political activism. His father was a civil rights lawyer; his parents met on Capitol Hill when they worked for two different senators."

It's always such a stab in the heart to lose someone close, and in this case, a very young man with so much promise and potential.
After eight long suffering years, maybe in 2008, can we then finally return to the common sense of a proliferating science community.

Sheril,

I am so glad that you have decided to honor Dave in this way. Having had the opportunity to work with him in the NSF GK-12 program, I can say that he was a truly inspiring individual. Not only did he have potential as a scientist, but he had potential as a great steward. There were many activities and ceremonies in his honor in the few months after we lost him. It is refreshing to see that honor bestowed such a time later. I think that Dave would be as ready to fight for science as he was for our country and would be very glad to know that others are fighting in his name.

I think that Dave would be as ready to fight for science as he was for our country and would be very glad to know that others are fighting in his name.

Hey Juls,
I'm glad you commented as someone who worked alongside David in the NSF GK-12 program at UMaine. You observed firsthand how uniquely excited, interested, and passionate he was to pursue teaching, graduate studies, and contribute in the conservation realm. He had already accomplished so much in 25 years. The 2006 Society for Conservation Biology meeting in San Diego honored him in their program. I agree with your last statement and we must continue fighting for science in our nation and around the world.