"Pandora’s Box – Bringing Science into Politics: The Debate on Scientific Integrity in U.S. Policymaking"

Read the full article.

Philipp Steger, Attaché for Science and Technology at the Embassy of Austria in Washington, D.C, published this article in Bridges, the Embassy's S&T Policy publication, in April 2005. It contains a useful history of the controversy over the claims that the Bush Administration has politicized science to an unacceptable degree. It also has a great set of links to sources relevant to the controversy.

Some excerpts:

Barry D. Gold, a former staffer at the House Science Committee who is now in charge of science-based conservation programs at the David & Lucile Packard foundation, sums it up well when he says: “Unfortunately, the issue of politicization of science, itself, got politicized.”

It is unlikely that the debate’s politicization will be helpful for science. One reason is that it has reduced the likelihood that Congress will come up with any meaningful responses to the issue. Of even more importance: the debate has eclipsed a crucial issue, namely whether there really is a consensus on the appropriate role of science in policymaking.

What the critics of the Bush Administration’s handling of science in policymaking are saying in essence is that the credibility of science is being misused to further a political agenda. And the administration is responding by saying that it’s not abusing the credibility of science. Hardly anyone seems to wonder whether the tendency to give a priori credibility to science simply because it comes under the cloak of Science may be part of the problem.

I would suggest, as I have in the past, that there is reason to give added credibility to "scientific knowledge", where the term is intended to mean knowledge:

- that is related to an establish basis in scientific theory;
- that is based on controled observations, that have been replicated;
- that has successfully passed peer review processes in established journals.

It seems to me that such knowledge has epistemological quality that is lacking in many kinds of knowledge (e.g. bureaucratic, political, or "common" knowledge), and thus is more credible than most. I would not ever suggest that it must be believed, nor that it alone constitutes a unique basis for political action.

Steger makes the point, quoting others, that frequently scientists can be found on various sides of an issue. Indeed, this is true, when there has been a serious effort to obtain balanced, independent scientific advice. The issue of concern is of course whether there is adequate effort to assure expertise, independence, and balance on the hot politico-scientific issues of the day.