My latest contribution to Science Progress is now up. In essence, this is my final reaction to Hillary's big science speech, which I very much enjoyed--but I did have a number of qualms. One of them was her "crossing the streams," if you will, by implying or stating that restoring scientific integrity to government on the one hand, and supporting U.S. scientific innovation on the other, are somehow the same project. I'd argue that they're quite different things and don't necessarily benefit from being lumped together. An excerpt:
On an intellectual rather than thematic level, however, that conjunction doesn't always work so well. Consider: "Competitiveness" is a problematic term insofar as we really ought to want science to advance globally, not in any single country. And when it comes to money, scientists always want more public research funding than government can probably give them. It's more than appropriate for the democratic process to decide where lines ought to be drawn and other priorities pursued with limited resources.
These are not integrity issues, which, to my mind, ought to be considered fundamental and non-negotiable. Suppression, misinformation, assaults on free speech and inquiry, deliberate torquing of scientific deliberations--such abuses are simply intolerable in any context. By contrast, when it comes to decisions about how much to invest in scientific research, politicians must make tough choices, legitimately counterbalancing the need to ensure innovation and advancement with many other competing mandates.
You can read the whole column here.
- Log in to post comments
"Suppression, misinformation, assaults on free speech and inquiry, deliberate torquing of scientific deliberations--such abuses are simply intolerable in any context."
Then I guess you part company with your pals over at DeSmogBlog when they disparage those that don't ascribe to climate alarmism by saying,
"Climate change deniers may be slotted into either of two categories.
One consists of those who actually believe, against the vast preponderance of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that humans are not driving climate change. The remainder say what they will, careless or regardless of the facts because they have a personal interest in the outcome of the anti-global warming effort.
The former can be forgiven their ignorance or their self-delusion. But the latter are subversives who ought to be treated accordingly.
The devastation to which these people have already committed us exceeds by far all danger we will ever experience from terrorism or dreaded immorality."
Or is it part of your new "scientific integrity policy" to allow comparing scientists that disagree with politically correct theories to be portrayed as more dangerous and loathsome than Osama Bin Laden?