Response to Gerson

I was really annoyed by "A Phony 'War on Science'" by Michael Gerson, an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post (May 7, 2008). Gerson, described by Wikipedia as an "Evangelical Christian" and former Bush speech writer who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations, feels that the charges of a Bush administration war on science are false. He correctly states that there are many areas in which Government scientists (Elias Zerhouni, Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins) have made important contributions with the full support of the Bush politicians.

Of course the Bush administration is not against all forms of science, and in fact is ideologically in support of some kinds of science and technology such as manned space exploration. Think of its (unlikely) belief that increased support for basic research through the National Science Foundation will increase U.S. competitiveness in international markets. Indeed, some of its ideologically based areas of support may be distorting appropriate allocations of resources not only away from some important areas of research (such as stem cells) but also toward some relatively unproductive areas such as development of vehicles for manned planetary expeditions.

The Bush administration is criticized on the basis that it seeks to gag government scientists who come out with findings it does not like and that conflict with its ideological biases or the economic interests or ideologies of its political supporters. The key areas of concern with political oppression of science relate to reproductive biology, the environment, or regulation of industrial products.

I would describe myself as "progressive" rather than "liberal", since I am annoyed by Gerson's labeling of liberals as an epithet, but I can state that I am not opposed to people advocating government policies based on their own beliefs. Gerson is right that there are serious ethical issues involved in reproductive biology, and that they warrant a public debate. I would hold, however, that the democratic process demands that that debate be as fully informed as is practicable, and that the suppression of scientific evidence is radically contrary to our democratic traditions.

If the founding fathers agreed on anything it was on the need to guarantee freedom of speech to give democratic processes a real chance to protect human liberty.