Chad reports a not-so-subtle message from a science conference:
The annoying thing was the peripheral message-- she took pains to state several times that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress support science, in a tone that basically came across as chiding us for thinking otherwise. That was annoying by itself, but at the very end of the talk, she specifically warned against taking partisan positions, citing the letter supporting John Kerry that was signed by a couple dozen Nobel laureates as something that made it harder to keep science funding. She said that after that, when she met with administration officials about budget matters, she could see them thinking "Damn scientists..."
When the government says or does something scientifically stupid, it is our solemn duty to go along with it.
- Log in to post comments
I would guess that she did not get the memo about science funding depending on a) voting Republican (or professing so), and b) agreeing with what-ever the White House says at the time (up to and including 'The Earth is Flat.')
This isn't what she was saying. Of course it is our duty as scientists to criticize the Bush administration (or any administration) when it says stupid things about Intelligent Design and climate change, but that's not the same as endorsing an opposing candidate *as scientists*. As people, sure, absolutely we should be politically active, and I don't see where she's denying that.
You don't see why she's denying that?
Why the hell does anybody deny anybody else anything? The issue is power.
"The money involved seems to be mostly a re-shuffling of already existing science funding, rather than a new allocation of funds, making it a kind of zero-sum game in which some sciences gain, while others lose," hits the nail on the head, and that's about power, too.
She's "asking" scientists to help make themselves even less powerful than they already are. (Isn't that nice of her to "ask?") Could it be more plain than that?
Forget just supporting candidates: scientists need to run for public office.
Well, that, and non-infinite funds. Politicians always have make decisions on what to fund or not fund. Some of it is certainly out of spite (or "power"), but other factors include belief in what will get them reelected, or what will win them a "lasting legacy" in the eyes of history.
Sciences gaining at the expense of others is hardly limited to this adminstration. While under Clinton, biology funding boomed (which was good for me as I was a grad student in biology at the time), particle physics under Clinton was devastated by the cancelling of the Superconducting Supercollider. These shifts around are nothing new.
What *is* new of course is the religious objectionism in the administration to things like evolution and the Big Bang. And those certainly should be refuted by scienctists. But by showing *why* the objections are meaningless in a scientific framework.
But the Clinton administration did recommend going ahead with the SSC. They just opted not to push it hard in the face of congressional opposition. That's not really the same thing.
The problem is that if scientists are seen as partisan then the other party sees no need to support them at all. Science then gets even more politicized. Now some, presumably Democrats, wouldn't mind this. However the fact is that Democrats won't always be in power. Indeed they often haven't been. If you marginalize yourself towards Republicans then you marginalize science.
The thing to do is to get involved. If Republicans are the big problem right now (and I agree they are - despite being a Republican) then make sure good science oriented Republicans make it to office.
The problem is that the real choices happen before elections when people are deciding to run. Surprisingly there are often so few people involved, relatively speaking, that even a single activist can make a big difference.
But it's important in my opinion not to just demonize one side.
I should add, to second Jonathan, that I recall Clinton coming to our labs, saying how much he valued the work of all the scientists, and then dramatically slicing funding (and ironically increasing funding to more wasteful science projects even though I benefitted). In the 90's I felt like Clinton and Gore were horrible for science. I'd be the first to admit that Bush has been worse. But the point is that most politicians don't trust science and so we have to change that by getting involved. (In both parties)
Re. Clark Gobles' comment ....
And what are you going to do when the governing party just won't listen to a "Scientific Truth" because it is inconvenient to them and their backers?
Such as global warming and "evilutionism/Darwinism".
Re. Clark Gobles' comment ....
And what are you going to do when the governing party just won't listen to a "Scientific Truth" because it is inconvenient to them and their backers?
Such as global warming and "evilutionism/Darwinism".
Incidentally, the moment anyone uses the word "Darwinism" to describe evoultionary Biology, you know you are dealing with at least one of; An idiot, a bigot, a fool, or just plain uneducated.
Clark Gobles wrote:
"Now some, presumably Democrats, wouldn't mind this. However the fact is that Democrats won't always be in power."
?????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????
That may be the case, but rather implies that "congressional opposition" to the SSC was Republican. It wasn't. In fact, only two Democrats in the Senate voted to save the SSC (and 9 Republicans!). One of the two Democrats to support the SSC was, however, Russ Feingold, so that is a good sign for scientists if he chooses to run for President in 2008.
I think if one party shows a systematic disdain towards science as a practice and the other does not, it's completely appropriate for us, _as scientists_, to support the party that supports science as opposed to the other party.
Why should science consider itself to be above politics, when politics refuses to treat science as above politics? When one party trashes scientific notions at its convenience, time and time again, wouldn't the proper response to be for scientists to oppose that part, "as scientists"?
Is there any other subset of the electorate that is required to maintain political neutrality in face of hostility from one of the political parties? I'm not seeing the argument for thinking that way.
(BTW, "non-infinite" is also known as "finite" - sorry to be snarky but one of my pet peeves is the repeated addition of prefixes when the original root word would suffice.)
Shorter unnamed program director: "Nice funding you got here. Be a shame if something happend to it."
It shouldn't. But my point is that, at least from Chad's summary, the speaker never claimed that criticizing Bush's science policy was wrong; she was saying that the public endorsement of Kerry by a group of scientists made her job of lobbying for funding from Bush harder. As it no doubt did.
Because that reduces scientists into yet another "special interest group" tied to a party. That's great if the party the group supports wins, not so great otherwise. That's why many organizations refuse to publically endorse a candidate even if they privately encourage their members to support a certain candidate as individuals.
Scientists should certainly take political positions. However, and notwithstanding all the anti-scientific junk that has recently come from the GOP, it would be a political mistake for the scientific community to become too closely identified with the Democrat party. Once you lose the option of credibly threatening to shift your support, you can be ignored by both parties.
Scientists are by-and-large not numerous, and not rich. So we need to be smart in selecting our targets. I think we need to focus our efforts for conspicuously pro-science politicians and against conspicuously anti-science ones. For example, Santorum, who has given major aid and comfort to the IDers/creationists, is up for re-election. He's very vulnerable (he's down in the polls, and a GOPer in a more-blue-than-red state). Scientists coming out against him would have significant impact, and send a message to the GOP that they can't sell out wholesale to the Religious Right on evolution.
And I write this as a registered Republican who voted for Bush.
I doubt that the endorsement of Kerry made any difference. Bush is hostile to science whether scientists criticize him publicly, endorse his opponent, or just shut up. Hostility to science is one of the ways he appeals to his base.
On the other hand, if Kerry had *won* the election, I don't think there's any doubt that scientists would be much better off (even aside from the ways in which *everyone* would be better off).
If a risky move doesn't work, that doesn't make it a wrong move; the rightness or wrongness of a strategy has to be determined based on the information available at the time. At the time, the election looked very much in doubt and its outcome would obviously have a large effect, so attempting to influence the electorate and therefore the election was the right move. It didn't work, as it turned out; but that's no excuse for armchair quarterbacking.
Gerard Harbison writes, I think we need to focus our efforts for conspicuously pro-science politicians and against conspicuously anti-science ones. Seems to me that's exactly what the Nobel laureates did. So why criticize them for it now?
Furthermore, I don't agree with the larger claim that scientists shouldn't get involved in politics as scientists. This principle doesn't apply to doctors, lawyers, teachers, police officers or media commentators but scientists are somehow special? I think scientists have every right to get involved in public debate as scientists, just like any other profession. Public discourse won't be improved by the absence of a scientific viewpoint.
I do agree with Gerard, though, that it would be a mistake for a scientific organization to declare a *permanent* alliance with one party. There isn't a party of science; at most there are particular candidates and platforms that are pro-science. An independent science advocacy group can urge both parties to adopt pro-science positions in order to secure its endorsement or at least its neutrality. But if one candidate stakes out an anti-science platform, scientists can and should oppose it.