Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Do Republican's Hate Science?

A few days ago I noted the publication of Chris Mooney's book, The Republican War on Science. Perhaps not surprisingly given the title, the book has raised some controversy.

Mooney is a young writer focusing on the intersection of science and politics, and publishing in Seed magazine and the American Prospect. He seems to be respected. Check out his blog. In a recent interview, he gave his thesis as follows:

Everyone, every interest group, politicizes or abuses science to some extent. Everyone cherry-picks information, from time to time, to help bolster a particular agenda.

However, there's something that's quite different about this administration, when it comes to the extent of the abuses. Hardly a week goes by but we have some new outrage at the science-and-politics interface. So the problem is systemic, not just occasional.

My thesis is that this is a political phenomenon that is unique to Republican rule in the United States, and which is epitomized by the Bush administration. This administration is constantly doing favors for its big-business and religious-right constituents. That prejudice drives distortions of science on issues ranging from global warming to sex education.

Daniel S. Greenberg wrote a review of the book in the London Review of Books (subscription required). Greenberg has been covering this beat for a long time, and is always worth reading!

Adam Keiper also wrote a review, titled: "A Vast Conspiracy?" for the National Review. Republished on the Ethics and Public Policy Center website, his review seems interesting, and conservative.

Roger Pielke Jr. published "A Few Comments on the Mooney Thesis". He is an academic doing research and teaching on the science and politics intersection, and his review is perhaps more balanced and theoretical.

Other reviews come from OnEarth, The Scientist, SFStation, and The Times of London.

A review by Keay Davidson's in The Washington Post was scorchingly negative. Davidson is a science reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle. His review drew a response from Mooney, as well as a letter to the editor from my former colleague, Don MacCorquodale.

I would like to add my bit to the discussion.

First, most science seems immune from controversy of the type loved by politicians. People are interested by not concerned with the discovery of a tenth planet and its moon. The recent Nobel Prizes for “for the development of the metathesis method in organic synthesis", for the “the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique", and for the “discovery of the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease" are not likely to generate any political heat.

Second, the Republican Party is not homogeneous, nor is the Democratic Party. Each party includes factions which have issues, about which they care deeply, but positions on the hottest issues are not necessarily shared widely by the party membership.

On the hot issues, each side marshals support, including evidence in support of its position. The evidence may be scientific, but other forms of evidence, such as testimony of supporters and statistics are often more important. It is not surprising that most politicians at the national level are trained as lawyers, nor that they excel at the advocacy required to advance the issues they espouse. Many will seek to challenge the evidence that does not support their case, including the scientific evidence. So too, many will seek to challenge the testimony of those seen as in opposition to their case, including the testimony of scientists.

Controversies in which scientific evidence plays an important role are not new. The controversy over cigarette regulation hinged on issues such as the link between cancer and smoking, and the addictiveness of cigarettes, and was very controversial in its day. Similarly, one party is not always right and the other always wrong. I find those fighting against use of genetically modified foods, who in the U.S. at least are usually on the left, to be likely to use science in ways I find objectionable.

Republican control of the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court assure that the issues pushed by the Republican party are the hottest right now, because the Republicans are likely to see them into policy. These seem to reflect factions within the party: the Religious Right seeks to affect public policy concerning the teaching of evolution versus intelligent design, about abortion and the use of stem cells taken from aborted fetuses, and about the rights of gays and lesbians. Business interests in the Republican party are seeking to limit business regulation, and the controversy is primarily about environmentally based rules and pharmaceutical licensing. All of these issues are such that scientific evidence is called into play in their controversies, and often the scientists are on the side of those who oppose the Religious Right or (Republican) business interests.

Chris Moody suggests that this Administration is worse than previous ones in its treatment of scientific evidence, and some others agree with him. The Union of Concerned Scientists has stated:
An unprecedented level of political interference threatens the integrity of government science.

Thousands of scientists have signed its petition.

Congressman Bruce Waxman has made similar charges:
Over the last four years, experts appointed to advisory panels have been subjected to political litmus tests. Scientists have been barred from conducting research that conflicts with Administration policies. And scientific conclusions have been rejected when politically inconvenient. We are witnessing an assault on the basic principle that science should inform policy, not echo a political agenda.

Recent reports by the U.S. General Accounting Office and National Academy of Sciences addressed the same concern, and (while not criticizing the administration) have made recommendations on how the independence and balance of scientific advice could be maintained and improved for Federal Advisory Committees.

For my purposes, it is more important to identify specific people in the government making specific assaults on the use of scientific knowledge in specific situations than it is to decide whether Democrats are worse than Republicans, or whether the Bush Administration is worse than previous administrations.

The government is operated by people, and characteristics of the individual count. Individuals differ greatly in the importance that they attribute to scientific evidence, and in their commitment to disinterested, informed, independent and balanced scientific advice. I would expect scientifically trained individuals, acculturated to the culture of science, would share my views on the importance of such things.

Anytime there is a charge that politcal nominees for office are unqualified, it raises my concern, since the unqualified are unlikely to know the evidence on which the functions of their office are based, nor to be appropriately sensitive to new scientific evidence on the subject nor to actively seek scientific advice.

The law which established the offices of the Inspectors General stated that the IGs were to be trained auditors, independent, and expert in the use of evidence to monitor and evaluate government operations. I would assume that the spirit behind a strong cadre of IGs is similar to that behind a strong interest in scientific advice -- basing policy and practice on objective evidence, rather than on subjective belief and ideology. Time magazine's recent report that 60 percent of IGs in this administration are from political rather than audit backgrounds thus seems to me to be an indicator in the wrong direction.

Ultimately, I am not concerned with generalities, but with specifics. I don't think Republicans hate science, but I worry that specific functionaries with specific responsibilities (of specific concen to me) might undervalue schience. Are key officials involved in U.S. foreign policy or foreign assistance policy likely to abuse or misuse science as part of or in furtherance of advocacy related to current hot button (or other) issues, such as human reproduction, global warming, biodiversity, genetically modified foods, etc.? Comments on the specifics would be most welcome!

No comments: