For quite some time, a lot of scientists have been ringing the alarm bell over the torturous policies of the Bush Administration and Congress when it comes to science. I’ve been talking about it quite a bit on this blog and in some public fora. I told other scientists to get involved; after all, if the Administration doesn’t like activist judges, imagine what they would do about activist scientists!
It’s time to organize, and it looks like the groundwork has been laid. Michael Stebbins of the Sex, Drugs, and DNA blog has started a new organization to get scientists and engineers to fight back. It’s called
Scientists & Engineers for America
It’s a good idea, and it’s high time for it. They have even created a Bill of Rights for scientists and engineers. It’s an interesting list of what kinds of freedom scientists need — yes, need — in order to help everyone understand the Universe better. My favorite:
The federal government shall not support any science education program that includes instruction in concepts that are derived from ideology and not science.
Damn skippy.
I joined up, and I plan on finding out how I can help more. You should consider it as well.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
When you say that the federal government should teach Principle X or fund Research A, that’s not a scientific statement, it’s a political statement made by a scientist. As long as you can keep that distinction, I’m all with you.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
“…As long as you can keep that distinction, I’m all with you.”
But the quote in the article is simply asking the government to follow the Bill of Rights! ANYONE can instist on that–including scientists.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
“But the quote in the article is simply asking the government to follow the Bill of Rights!”
I think you’re a little confused. This isnt THE Bill of Rights, it’s a group’s statement of principles that’s written in the same form as the US Bill of Rights.
Besides, even if it was THE Bill of Rights, that’s still not a scientific statement. There’s no science behind the US Constitution, it’s all political theory. You can say science SHOULD help guide policy, and I agree it should, but that statement is not a scientific one, it’s one of a belief. It isn’t reached through the scientific method, it’s entirely subjective. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it doesn’t make it “science” either.
Understand I’m not saying that that’s what this group is doing, though I do think calling it a “Bill of Rights” is a little pompous, I’m just saying this a kind of tendency that develops in such groups, and you should guard against it.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:58 am
Comment about a talk by Dr Stebbens, one of the founders: “Can science and politics be compared to oil and water, or is their relationship murkier than that? If lines can be drawn, how do science policy-makers deal with controversial areas, and where do the public get involved?
The US is currently the world leader in science and innovation. But is that golden glow now fading? What does the future hold for US science, and will conservative right-wing attitudes contribute to its gradual demise? How should the public be ‘educated’ about science, and who should get the final say? ….”
I am all for this group!
I think you are misunderstanding the principles here, Andy. It’s the simple, “You are welcome to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts”, principle. I’m not sure where you are seeing some advocacy for something more specific than that.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:42 am
Good idea – poor delivery. Two criticisms…
(1) Science is science, and politics is politics. (Just like religion is religion, and state is state.) “The Federal Government SHALL not support….”? That ain’t science. That is just as bad as what the Bush Administration is doing.
(2) The name. I really hate names like this. So what, if I should have some differences with the charter for this group I’m suddenly NOT for America? Groups on both sides of the political spectrum do this.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:56 am
Indeed Dave, I have that same problem. I also hate it when organizations put the word “crusade” in their title, or anything that attempts to demean me if I choose not to be a member for any reason.
This particular one doesn’t really bother me cause I’m not American, but I definitely see that it will be bothersome to some people in the US.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:08 am
[...] (via the Bad Astronomy Blog) [...]
September 28th, 2006 at 6:19 am
I would suggest people check out Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog “Prometheus,” regarding science policy and politics. Science today has become totally politicized, on both the left and the right. The is most evident in the “Global Warming” debate where traditonal science standards seem not to be practiced by climatologists, and where dissenting scientists that dont agree with the politically correct (Al Gore version) are labeled as “deniers.”
September 28th, 2006 at 6:55 am
There is no global warming debate in scientific circles. And you’re damned wrong if you think scientists shouldn’t make specific policy recommendations. They should. Often. More than they do. That doesn’t always mean those policy recommendations should be followed, but scientists need to be heard and to have a higher profile in the public discourse.
I absolutely hate this “keep quiet and don’t rock the boat!” attitude. It’s not productive. If you leave politics to the politicians, that is not democracy. Democracy is, literally — and by definition, mind you — government of the people. The people in a democracy — and “people” here includes scientists, as well — cannot be passive observers, they must be active participants. They must write their representatives and join together to form lobby groups. Those who do so have been alternately praised and demonised as “activists” or “radicals” or “special interests”, but the plain fact is that this is what healthy democracy looks like.
So, no, I don’t accept that “science is science and politics is politics”. I don’t accept that scientists should sit by quietly while politicians enact laws based on ideology or faith rather than reality and evidence. I don’t accept that anybody, ever should keep their mouth shut rather than speaking out when things are going horrifyingly, disasterously, and demonstrably wrong.
And, while we’re on the subject of things going demonstrably wrong, there is no scientific debate on global warming now, any more than there is on evolution. There’s a policy debate, sure. But I can’t imagine why scientists would want to stay out of it, when science could do so much to shed light on the causes and extent of the problem and suggest possible solutions.
The only people who would want scientists out of policy debates are people with something to fear from scientific findings.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:08 am
Joshua, you’re proving my point. “There is no debate” is clearly wrong and misleading. It’s this kind of “consensus science” that is wrong with a lot of science today. Science isn’t about consensus as any good scientist knows. Look beyond the media and the activist groups and delve into the science a little deeper and there are large uncertainties. Blasting the general public with propaganda about “consensus” and that the “science is settled” is leading science down a dark path.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Jay, there really is no debate regarding the reality of many scientific discoveries such as global warming and evolution. Of cousre there is scientific debate about the details of each. That is legitimate. The issue is when the governmet raises false objections to, or tries to suppress, results that are counter to the interests of their political supporters. It is not legitimate for Bush et al. to say “teach the controversy” regarding evolution, when the only cotroversy exists in the minds of hos political supporters. The evidence for global warming is also clear. It is an incovenient truth and not just politically correct.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Joshua is right: there is no debate (on whether climate change is happening and whether a significant portion of it is caused by humans CO2 production).
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
From the article (though you should really read the whole thing):
“Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.”
“Remarkably, none of the [928] papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
September 28th, 2006 at 8:25 am
I do look beyond the media, and that’s exactly “the problem”, at least from your perspective. There is correct and there is false. The media puts both on an equal footing, because it’s easier than doing investigation. And that is precisely why we need activist scientists out there to put their feet down and call out the lies and distortions with a nice, cold shower of Reality and Evidence.
Because that’s what scientific consensus is based on. Scientists aren’t convinced of things because other scientists said so. They’re convinced because of the evidence. At this point, all the evidence points to global warming (although I do prefer the term “global climate change” and concede that “global warming” can be misleading). Hence the majority of scientists agree that it exists, which, yes, constitutes a consensus.
SCARY, SCARY CONSENSUS! A bunch of individuals examing the evidence independently and coming to the same conclusion. OMG GROUP THINK! Or, you know, maybe the conclusion is right.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Signed up and donated. It’s high time we get a vision into the need for scientific voice in public policy debate.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:18 am
So, we have a bunch of “scientists” getting political, asking not to be political. Hmmm.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Restrict ideas? No way.. Ideas begat invention and innovation. Science and Engineering result. Back to the drawing board please.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Andy said: “When you say that the federal government should teach Principle X or fund Research A, that’s not a scientific statement, it’s a political statement made by a scientist. As long as you can keep that distinction, I’m all with you.”
Scientists (when so inclined of course) should be supporting evidence based political decisions. To stay out of politics is like advocating critical thinking everywhere but politics. But I am not talking about advocating a political position, though one is free to do so. I mean advocating the use of the scientific process itself.
Political decisions are made based on economics, philosophy of government’s role, morality beliefs, and so on. It’s is critical to promote evidence as an important basis for decision making. Groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the newer, Scientists and Engineers for America are important vehicles for promoting the importance and validity of the scientific process and for keeping a check on government actions that undermine the public’s confidence in the scientific process.
Currently, evidence is presented as a side issue. Science has a prominent face in global warming related politics by the nature of the issue. But the evidence is treated as manipulable by either side rather than as politically neutral. Needle exchange programs and abstinence only education policies are promoted as a moral issue and the evidence of their effectiveness or lack thereof, is completely ignored in decision making.
The result is government, by example, is teaching the public that science is not reliable such as in the global warming debates, and not important in policy decisions as in the abstinence only and needle exchange programs.
It’s a separate issue if individual scientists want to advocate any particular political position. And it may be hard to keep purely neutral in cases where the evidence overwhelmingly supports one political position over another. Regardless, the science community can and should be speaking out in support of the principle that evidence should have a prominent role in political decision making. The scientific community should be speaking out against gross distortions of evidence when they see it. They should be speaking out against government positions that result in anti-science endorsements for the sake of caving in to or catering to religious groups.
While the later statement may be more controversial, there are respectful ways to approach the conflict when evidence contradicts religious beliefs. While not speaking out against such positions allows government to treat scientific conclusions as the equivalent of religious beliefs. The result is it undermines the credibility of the scientific process and leads the public away from science itself.
One more comment: The posts here indicate we have a long way to go because we have to start with educating the scientific community itself about the importance of promoting science for science’s sake. When the scientific evidence supports the opposing political view, scientists on the side without supporting evidence are very susceptible to denial and the ‘blind eye’. In such cases, paying particularly careful attention to how the evidence is presented is critical.
Thus evidence for an issue such as global warming should be stated as, the evidence is conclusive CO levels and higher temperature occur together. If we have cause and effect evidence fine, but if we only have evidence of association, then we ourselves have to resist the temptation to describe the evidence as concluding something which may appear obvious, but which has not really been directly confirmed. Such care in statements made serve to educate the public about some of the finer points in the scientific process as well as result in more confidence in the scientific process.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Aaack, there’s a typo above I can’t fix!
September 28th, 2006 at 10:41 am
I’m not a big fan of the “for America” name either, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if this organization doesn’t use it, then some right-wing, big-business front organization will instead, so it’s the lesser of two evils.
It’s also taking a page out of the opposition’s playbook. It’s all very well to aspire to be high-minded about these issues, but the other side is playing dirty, and the stakes are very high. We can’t afford to be too politically correct when the future of our country, our civilization, and yes, our whole planet, is at risk.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:29 am
While you idiotic librals do your pointless complaining I will be visiting the Kecks and doing some reaserch you people are complaining you can’t do because some politicians believe in Christianity. Seriously grow up you morons. Stop deluding yourself, the media isn’t always right, they’re just a bunch of people who know how to talk and don’t even know what they’re talking about.
Now BA, I like your de-bunking with the movies and the misconseptions, but I will be honest, politicaly, you’re an idiot. What you people are doing is the same thing as putting a retard in Medical School. Stick with discovering the undiscovered okay?
September 28th, 2006 at 11:54 am
One could write quite a lot in response to that, but really I can sum it all up pretty briefly: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Wow, Stupid Democrap. You totally won us over with your insightful and totally “not-a-troll” comments. Not to mention your excellent spelling. To quote musician Mike Keneally – “you are as useful as a urinal in a convent.”
J. D.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:59 am
I’m going to start my own group: Concern American Engineers For Fluffy Kittens & Motherhood.
When people disagree with us, we’ll say, “There is no debate! Anyone who deviates from our opinion is a doodyhead! Why do you hate America, mom and kittens?”
Sorry, Joshua, there is debate. I can’t decide whether you are blinded ideologically or trying to blind others ideologically. There’s a protagonist character just like you in Atlas Shrugged.
As for science and politics, for the love baybee Jesus, folks, read some scientific history already. Science has been polticized since the year minus. Why is this always news?
September 28th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
I think I’ll leave “Stupid Democraps”’s post up, as a shining example of everything we’re fighting against.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
I think Joshua nailed it above — scientists should be making policy recommendations, based on current scientific knowledge. Politicians have every right to ignore those recommendations, as long as they don’t base their objections in pseudoscience or outlying scientific opinions. For example: “I don’t want to push for carbon emission controls because it seems expensive,” or even “because it affects certain of my constituents,” is perfectly reasonable (even if some people find it objectionable). On the other hand, if a politican says “I don’t want to control emissions because there’s a scientist who claims CO2 doesn’t affect climate” is objectionable, as it relies on cherry-picking a view far outside the mainstream.
That’s sort of true, depending on what you mean. The consensus position is considered the current state of scientific knowledge. Anything lying outside the consensus carries the burden of proof — making a claim contradictory to consensus is not unscientific, but claiming the truth of such a claim without very solid evidence is unscientific. In every field of science, outlying claims are subject to intense (sometimes vicious) scrutiny. If enough evidence is provided, the outlying idea becomes part of the consensus. That’s just how science works.
We do always need outlying views in order to expand our knowledge (since every idea was necessarily outside the consensus at some point). In that sense, science is not about consensus. But if we’re talking about what we know (or at least what we think we know), the only reasonable reference point is the current consensus.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Alright, I’m confused, but ahh, I hope you have fun with that.
Did you see that last House MD episode? My gosh that was intense!
September 28th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
I am wondering…what does this group matter? Who in the political sphere will be saying “There’s a group of Scientists and Engineers for America! We’re in trouble now!” They haven’t cared before, and I doubt they’ll care now. (And if they needed someone to support a point of their’s, there’s no shortage of ’scientists’ they can find, so this group just becomes another pawn really…)
September 28th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
One of the more dangerous radical right, anti-science types in Washington is Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The man is completely incompetent when it comes to critical thinking. Oklahoma, though traditionally a “Swing State” in American politics, is basically conservative politically. If so, their voters should consider “conserving” rational thinking for a change and throw this nut out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Inhofe
http://www.democrats.com/node/10144
September 28th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
The problem with global warming “skeptics” is that they like to invent lots of new arguments for old data. There are an arbitrarily large number of arguments for any given set of data. We have plenty off arguments already. What they really need to do to rock the battlefield is find new data. Until that happens, poking at the use of “consensus” isn’t helping too much.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Well S D’s post certainly proves the old adage, “stupid is as stupid does”. Such opinions are always so well articulated.
On a more serious note, I hate to see what looks like people confusing global warming politics with global warming science. They are not melded together and when the scientific community forgets that, then we do ourselves a disservice. But more importantly, IMO (I’m not humble
), it happens when the scientists stray from the scientific process.
To say there isn’t a consensus refers more to the non-scientist’s understanding. To say there is a consensus is over generalizing the science community’s understanding. So it is no wonder people citing either position are going to disagree with the other.
We need to get away from that argument because it essentially results in scientists adding to the public’s perception that science is unreliable, easily twisted to support a position, and therefore irrelevant.
Perhaps one could wear two hats but only one at a time. With the science hat on, don’t discuss the tentative conclusions drawn from the global warming evidence, or if you do discuss them, at least put those conclusions in proper context. Discuss the science. This evidence is clear, this is overwhelming, this evidence might have several interpretations, we aren’t sure yet…..We know there is an association, most scientists think there is cause and effect, but there is some room for alternative causes or even combinations of causes that do xyz together but abc alone….yadda yadda yadda.
When you put your political hat on you can talk about the consequences of not acting, what actions to take based on the certainty or lack of certainty of the evidence, risk benefit, and so on.
If you try to wear the two hats at the same time, you dilute the value of science. That is not to say you can’t change the two hats over and over in a single conversation. Rather, be more conscious of what statements you are making about the evidence that blurs the line. You might be convinced global warming is a fact, for instance, but you can say the same thing and promote the validity of the science by stating global temperature can be measured fairly accurately and it has indeed risen. It will continue rising if conditions stay the same. Those are the real ‘facts’. What you are convinced of is a conclusion and while it may be an obvious conclusion, it is a conclusion nonetheless.
Speaking in terms of facts and evidence does more than just provide knowledge. It provides an education in how that knowledge was determined. It provides validity to the scientific process. It undermines the people trying to undermine the science.
Which brings me to my second point, (my political hat is on), I think I understand the concerns about the political language and perceived intentions or results of this group’s stated mission. And I think I understand that some people prefer science and don’t want to mix it with politics. Some perhaps don’t like seeing scientists as a formal group siding with ‘liberals’, ‘progressives’, ‘Democrats’, and/or ‘agnostic/atheist positions. There are a few comments above about “both sides do it”.
However, the evidence (science hat back on) is overwhelming that a subset of Evangelical Christians (unknown number) and a subset of Republicans (unknown number) who have resources, are organized, and have acquired some political power, have taken some significant actions to undermine the credibility of the scientific process.
One may choose to ignore this. I have no doubt science will prevail. It always has.
But I’d like to see science prevail sooner rather than later. IMO, given the current political state of affairs, scientists should at least be supporting the credibility and importance of science, regardless of their political positions. And they need to be careful not to let their political position cloud their objectivity in science.
The group introduced in this blog is taking a clear stand supporting science. It may be that the group’s leadership subverts that stand to a more political position. If so and you don’t agree, then withdraw from the group. (Or wait and see before signing on.) It is disappointing to see people make the assumptions here that the group’s political position is evidence by the language. I see the language of the SEA reflecting the anti-science actions that have been taken recently by people in positions of power in this country. Such actions call for this reaction.
If you see a progressive liberal atheist Democrat passing a law that undermines science, I promise to be equally against it and I bet this group would be too.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Rumour Mongerer Says:
“I am wondering…what does this group matter?”
They won’t matter unless they become a large group. The Union of Concerned Scientists can make statements that receive national coverage. There is influence in numbers.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Regarding “letter writing” – aside from actually voting, contacting your representatives, often, is the most effective form of “democracy in action.” I write letters on a semi-frequent basis on a variety of subjects that concern me to my three representatives (two Senators and one CongressCritter). The responses are telling. One generally responds vaguely and without real committment to improving things (I won’t be voting for him), and the other’s responses, though potentially written by a staffer, show thought and an understanding of my concern. While she doesn’t always promise anything, I know I’ve been heard. I almost never hear from the third, except for election flyers.
I need to start writing local officals, too.
jbs
September 28th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Skeptigirl: “They won’t matter unless they become a large group. The Union of Concerned Scientists can make statements that receive national coverage. There is influence in numbers. ”
—–
Well der! You’ve got a knack for explaining the obvious or something?
I’m still confuzed about the whole thing, but I doubt this groupie thing will last long, that’s just a hypothosys (SP?!?!?) But who knows, I could be wrong. *shrugga-fies*
September 30th, 2006 at 1:01 am
Phil said:
>> I think I’ll leave “Stupid Democrapsâ€â€™s post up, as a shining
>> example of everything we’re fighting against.
You’re fighting silly internet trolls? Well that explains a lot of what’s been going on here lately. Should I place that in the “Hasty Generaization Fallacy” or the “Unrepresetative Sample Fallacy”.
skeptigirl said:
>>>Which brings me to my second point, (my political hat is on),
You should be careful there, my dear. Political hats (as can be seen here and all over the interwebs) tend to snuff out actual thinking.
September 30th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
>One of the more dangerous radical right, anti-science types in Washington is Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Perhaps there can be some debunking of his ideas and the scientists that he cites, (yes, they do exist) instead of the ad hominems (sp?).
Personally, I get tired of the headlines reading “Warmest year in a Millenium” only to be followed by “Still not as warm as 1932″ or some more information on the effect of the sun on the earth or perhaps some more data than just the last 10 years. There is a lot of money in having global warming, and people just get entrenched. I distinctly remember in the 1970s talking about the oncoming Ice Age.
Not only that but Gore suggested that cigarette smoking is a significant factor in global warming, not to mention cow farts. You don’t think statements like that make degreed people like me, with lots of letters after my name, think that science doesn’t know what it is talking about, or at least some of them?
Like others have mentioned, I love BAs attempt to enlighten the world on astronomy. Sometimes he makes me scratch my head though. But then again, I still have to convince my wife that I’m not nuts.
October 6th, 2006 at 11:54 am
When “Concerned Scientists and Engineers for America” comes out STRONGLY on their website in favor of construction of hundreds of nuclear power plants, and nuclear fuel recycling, THEN I’ll believe they’re “concerned about science and the environment”.
Until then, they’re just another leftist propaganda group like the “Union of Concerned Scientists”
October 15th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Today people think that scientific thought is governed by opinion. The media are even putting up ridiculous polls which ask questions like, “Did humans evolve, or were they created?” Then they fold the results of these polls into news bits, along with interviews with scientists and pseudo-scientists – thus blurring the differences between opinion and peer-reviewed scienfitic data. So when politicians debate issues like global warming, or emergency contraceptives, or the role of religion in public schools, such polling data is actually used to bolster a position.
I believe strongly that as scientists and engineers, we have not on a right to push back when politicians blur these lines. I believe we have a *responsibility* to do so. If we don’t, who will do it? If it isn’t done, we might as well be back in the Dark Ages.
Science has already been politicized. It’s up to scientists to inform and educate. And if that means getting political about it, then so be it.
October 15th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Right, Warthog, anyone not reaching the same conclusions as you about this very complex issue must be a commie.
Nuclear power managed properly may be subject to overrated risk evaluations, but one must consider the consequences of spreading nuclear technology and improperly managed nuclear power plants, especially in third world countries. The issues are not as clear as you imply.
In addition, what makes a particular environmental position leftist? WPPSS, aka Whoops, attempted to build 5 nuclear power plants in WA state, 2 of which were mothballed at a cost of billions of wasted dollars. It was due to mismanagement and economics, not environmental concerns. Only one plant was ever completed.
October 15th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
TheGalaxyTrio Says to skeptigirl’s “political hat is on” comment:
You should be careful there, my dear. Political hats (as can be seen here and all over the interwebs) tend to snuff out actual thinking.
I do concern myself about including statements which distract people from the more important points I’m trying to make. But in this case, the separation of science and government is the point.
Conflict in science is typically (not always, but typically) a bit more civil than conflict in politics. It would seem a number of people in this crowd prefer to leave the conflicts in politics behind when they are here in the science realm.
That is understandable. If you attempt to discuss the impact of politics on science you have the problem that people in science crowds will naturally have political conflicts among themselves. There is a preference to leave those conflicts aside by not mentioning them when mingling in science forums and other science discussions and interactions. However, there are times, and this time in history is one of them, when politics invades the realm of science.
If we stick to supportable facts and away from political philosophies, we ought to be able to discuss our common goal, that of promoting the importance of the scientific process. If you dispute a fact, say so. Provide the evidence. Look at the other’s evidence. Rather than a blanket taboo on any discussion of politics or religion, there’s no reason we can’t discriminate between relative and irrelevant discussion as far as science is concerned.
I repeat my point, scientists should at least be supporting the credibility and importance of science, regardless of their political positions. And I add, not every single mention of something with a political tie needs to be taboo. If your government is actively promoting anti-science positions, it can’t be ignored.