I just came across this Salon.com “Dear Wingnut” piece, written by a pseudonymous conservative, who in this installment tries to defend the Republican record on science. It’s pretty audacious stuff, either completely uninformed about the true nature of the critiques of the GOP that I and others have made, or willing to dodge them entirely. And to top it off, the piece goes out with a whack at mainstream climate science.
Wingnuttery indeed.
Here’s a brief example of what we’re dealing with:
As president, George W. Bush put a scientist in charge of the Energy Department and created the position of U.S. undersecretary of science; proposed an Advanced Energy Initiative that called for a quantum increase in funding available for research into and development of new, cutting-edge technologies to lead America to more abundant and stable energy supplies; and proposed the American Competitiveness Initiative to, in the words of former Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman, “fortify America’s leadership in science through additional research funding in the physical sciences and by strengthening math and science education.”
House Republicans, under Speaker Newt Gingrich, proposed doubling the budget for the National Institutes of Health and dramatically increased federal financial support for the fight against diabetes. And it was Bush who tried to put a risk-averse NASA back into the business of space exploration by proposing a return to the moon and manned flight to Mars.
All of which ignores the real charges against Bush, laid out in my book The Republican War on Science and elsewhere. Also in that book, I present the real and non-caricatured case against Gingrich, which turns on the dismantling of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment on his watch, and the constant attacks by Gingrich Republicans on mainstream science on issues like global warming and ozone depletion.
And then there’s the Wingnut’s evasive defense of the Bush stem cell record:
To set the record straight, George W. Bush was the first president to propose federal funding for stem cell research. As Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson said in August of 2004, “President Bush provided — for the first time — federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The president’s unprecedented decision allows for federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines that were derived before Aug. 9, 2001, with no limits on private funding of research.”
Not exactly an anti-science position, is it?
To the extent that limitations were placed on federal funding, it was because of the ethics involved, not the science. Acting on the recommendation of a blue-ribbon commission that looked at the issue for some time, the president decided it would be unethical — in the moral sense, not the legal one — to act as those who believe embryonic stem cell research holds the cure to everything that ails us would have had him do.
Bush got the science dramatically wrong about the number of embryonic stem cell lines that would be available for research under his policy, and their scientific promise and viability. He therefore misled the public about a matter purely scientific in nature, and the error was so serious that it fully undermined his policy. And Bush never set the record straight or revised said policy. Wingnut does not mention any of this.
I could go on, but why? It’s been abundantly clear for some time that most conservatives who seek to refute claims about a Republican “war on science” don’t actually take the real charges head on. Maybe it’s too much intellectual work–or maybe they just can’t.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Dude–they’re not anti-science, because they want to go to Mars and stuff…
May 13th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Chris,
Those who downplay a war on science can go to the money trail because it is the primary means of talking about support for science. Both sides of the aisle use it, those most active in science policy are often focused on budget numbers, if not obsessed over them. Even ScienceDebate2008 got all aflutter over the negotiations over the science budget numbers in the stimulus.
More money for science is a non-partisan, pro-science position. So the easy rhetorical trick is to assume if one stance – the money stance – is pro-science then there’s no possibility of being anti-science.
If your arguments are going to persuade people not already pre-disposed to the policy outcomes you support, the debate over science policy needs to be pushed away from the dollar arguments to arguments over how people think science information should be used in public decisionmaking. And that’s the real Sisyphean labor here.
People will continue to talk past you, and you past them, because this framing of pro and anti-science is not the one most commonly accepted.
May 13th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Ok, I remember when W signed the big “ban on stem cell research” thing. Because I was writing grants for a Pediatric Immunologist who specialized in inherited immunological disorders, and had to spend DAYS rewriting grants to remove any reference to stem cells, and instead insert the phrase “gene therapy.” On dozens of grants.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
OMG, GeekGirlsRule, RU serious? DAYS?!? Replacing two words with two other words? Wow, that must have been, like, really hard for you. I hope you still had enuff strength in your worn-out fingers to update ur blog and Facebook page.
So, anyway… what’s your point, exactly?
May 13th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I would love to know what a “a quantum increase in funding’ is.
A discrete quantity of funding? An amount of funding so small that it cannot be seen by even our best microscopes? An amount in a box that may or may not be dead, and is in both states until observed?
Just because you use a sciency sounding word, does not mean you understand science. Which is, of course, the entire problem with the Rethuglicans stance on science.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
ROTFLOL, seriously, do you work for a living? What would happen if your boss came in, and demanded that you change all of your past weeks work. What if it took you the better part of a week to change it all, and you didn’t get paid for those days you spent changing it? That’s what she went through. Belittling her just shows your ignorance of the process.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Hhhhmmm. “Wingnuterry.” “Rethuglicans.” “ROTLOL.” Name calling is getting thick here, at a site not known for this. After three decades as a Democrat who couldn’t take hypocrisy on the Left any more (c. 1996), let me agree with charges of hypocrisy by Republicans made here. But don’t Democrats do it too?
On the one hand, “science” is no more mentioned in the US Constitution than “abortion” is. Thus, observing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, there should be no government science. And economist Terence Kealey’s thick books make a good case that this is the most sensible and effective policy, based on the experience of history. On the other hand, the “General Welfare” clause can always be invoked for anything feds wanna do. And so they do. Thus, Bush’s doubling of NIH funding in only five years was termed an “eye-popping” increase by Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/full/415459a.html
Mooney abjures “the constant attacks by Gingrich Republicans on mainstream science on issues like global warming and ozone depletion.” And wasn’t the Montreal Protocol regulating HFCs and CFCs negotiated under a Republican President? Why, yes-Reagan and George H. W. Bush, to be exact. And didn’t UN Secretary General Kofi Annan ben quoted as saying that “perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol.” “Damn Rethuglicans! Damn them to Hell!” as a certain actor turned gun rights activist might say.
As for Republican’s complaints about Global Warming, wasn’t it Republican Congressman Sherwood Boehlert who objected to Republican Joe Barton against making scientists show their work in public, when the Hockey Stick became a hot item in 2006? Why, yes! It seems that facts are not kind to Mooney’s selectively argued thesis.
The one valid chestnut Mooney drags out is embryonic stem cell research by the feds. Bush tried to have it both ways and failed. True enough. But it’s not like that mistake cost unborn future generations of American’s much, considering Obama’s **quadrupling** of Bush’s total debt in only on fiscal year, mostly to pay off unions! It reminds me of Tea Party Protest sign” “Please Don’t Tell Obama What Comes After ‘Trillion’!” (To which a young party goer later asked me, “And what is that…?” I told him, saying you’re going to see it used in the federal budget in your lifetime – you’ll need to know it.)
Mooney’s summary is purely partisan in tone:
I could go on, but why? It’s been abundantly clear for some time that most conservatives who seek to refute claims about a Republican “war on science” don’t actually take the real charges head on. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that he isn’t considering the sources arguments seriously. I mean isn’t war killing people and breaking things? Where is the killing and breaking HERE?
Is there a memorable American phrase more subject to equivocation, hyperbole, and politicization than William James’s? (INSERT nominations below.) Chris, it isn’t “abundantly clear” to me – or my friends – some of whom are doing federally funded basic research. Funny how consistently Mooney gets it wrong.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Name calling is getting thick here, at a site not known for this.
The guy calls himself a “wingnut.” Chris would not have used the term otherwise.
On the one hand, “science” is no more mentioned in the US Constitution than “abortion” is.
Franklin, Jefferson, not men of the Enlightenment, were they?
Mooney’s summary is purely partisan in tone…
Well, Chris did write a book called The Republican War on Science. If you read the book, you can see the evidence as to why he thinks there is one.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Thus, observing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, there should be no government science.
*goes to National Archives, rereads 9th & 10th Amendments*
I’m not sure what version you’re reading, but if you’re reading the same ones I am, I think we can safely say you won’t be near a courtroom in a professional capacity anytime soon. Besides, evoking Kealey’s thick books (of his two, only one is on the subject, and the one that isn’t is a far better researched and thought out work – also, he’s a biologist, not an economist), it a red herring of course, “the more a firm invested in basic science, the more its productivity grew,” because the firm pays you study what they want. No one doubts that private industry funding leads to innovation, the private industry is must more interested in a quick turn around on the bottom line. Remove government funding, and you remove the chance to ask questions for information’s sake: which is one of the reasons this country has such a rich tradition of freakin’ Nobel winners.
But the thing is that in the ‘war on science’, it’s not about funding. You can’t cut funding because then the scientists have a ligit beef that the American public will side with. Instead, the war on science is about devaluing curiosity, intelligence and the rigorous pursuit of truth, something that Republicans headed by,George W. “great-to-have-a-beer-with” Bush have excelled at for the past 10 years.
Never mind all that, the MONTREAL protocol? Not only what have you done for me in the last 22 years, but IRCC, it was freakin’ Australia that was twisting Regan’s arm to sign that one.
No name calling, just pointing out that you’re wrong.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Since Orson can’t seem to read either the Constitution or a dictionary:
From the Oxford English Dictionary entry on war:
“active hostility or contention between living beings, or of conflict between opposing forces or principles.”
Killing and breaking don’t have to be involved.
Dr. FabulousShoes, to add to your comment, investigations into basic science often have economic benefits. Giant magnetoresistance is one example. It was first researched as a basic materials science question. The effect is used in hard drives and other memory applications, and its discoverers won the 2007 Nobel Prize in Physics.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Revyloution: “ROTFLOL, seriously, do you work for a living? What would happen if your boss came in, and demanded that you change all of your past weeks work…. and you didn’t get paid for those days you spent changing it? That’s what she went through. Belittling her just shows your ignorance of the process.”
Yup, I do work for a living. In fact, from the sound of it, I do exactly what GeekGirlsRule does… that is, I’m a graduate student in the biological sciences. And if I have to spend a few days working on a grant/publication for my boss, I do in fact get paid for it. (Beats the regular grind of lab work, in my opinion.) Belittling me just shows *your* ignorance of the process.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
When I first encountered this article, my first thought was that it was an impostor, and at any paragraph the author would shout out “April Fool” or some such thing. My sense is that it is extremely well crafted, and designed to elicit exactly the response that it has received. Of course a conservative defending Bush’s War on Science would not be expected to address the actual arguments. This is also standard operating procedure with Creationists setting up “debates” with supporters of Evolution for example.
So the question is why? Surely not because the author was seriously expecting to convert the readership of Salon to his or her point of view. Is it a trial balloon of some sort? Perhaps there is something about the response that can be fed back into the core constituency? Maybe it is the ace final essay exam paper in a course in Wingnuttery 101? Maybe someone has a secret reward out for advances in button pushing?
May 14th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Is it a trial balloon of some sort?
That was my thought. It says the guy is an “longtime conservative political operative.” I wonder if it’s just an experiment to see what kind of response he gets.
Well, he got an earful. 310 answers–a lot of pretty good ones, too.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:17 am
That’s ok, I don’t expect to understand ROTFLOL to know how many grants it really was (about 30) most of which were just up for renewal, or to realize that we already had everything printed out and boxed up to go to the NIH, because at the time they required hard copies, not electronic… OR thefact that we didn’t want to reprint everything because we had budgetary constraints and would prefer to not waste reams of paper because an idiot signed a stupid law.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Since people are on me for NOT reading the forgotten Amendments to the Constitution, I have the liberty to quote at least one. The tenth amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
This means that states and the people are retain their liberties the feds are proscribed from depredating.
As for the Ninth, read the two volumes of collected papers by Georgetown law prof Randy A. Barnett: “The Rights Retained by the People: The Ninth Amendment and Constitutional Interpretation.” The Ninth’s words are even clearer than the Tenth’s:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Which means the people’s freedoms are too many to enumerate; don’t mess with them! Wonder why people here can’t read?
Jon says “It says the guy is an ‘longtime conservative political operative.’”
For 20 years I was a registered Democrat – until Oct 1996, when a sagely old Democrat – a hero in the struggles against Nixon – convinced me that the proverbial s*** was going to hit the fan because of the Clintons. Furthermore, I realized that Dems were no longer on the side of First Amendment freedoms. Both proved to be true. So why stay?
If that’s “conservative,” then make the most of it.
Dr.FabulousShoes: Terence Kealey indeed has two books of relevence here: “The Economic Laws of Scientific Research” (1997)
and “Sex, Science & Profits: how People Evolved To Make Money, ” released in the UK (Jan 2008) but not the US yet. Perhaps you missed the news?
Jorge Oliveira writes: The book goes from the beginnings of scientific History, insofar as it is documented, to prove that the realities that underpin the evolution of science, of technology, of the economy and of the research in between, have actually remained pretty much the same. Time and again mankind has proved that (i) the public funding of research does not directly result in economic benefits, investment and jobs, (ii) the public funding of research does have many benefits that indirectly provide the environment for economic benefits, investment and jobs, but it does not drive them, (iii) advocates of the opposite that have vested interests in public research funding are very successful in persuading the public of their theory, specially politicians in a day and age when they feel somewhat intellectually inferior to said prestigious advocates.
It should be compulsory reading for politicians, specially in this day and age. Above all, it should be read by all senior executives in Universities
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R10BU78S22Z8L1/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
FFI, see
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2008/kealey-book.html
Kealey is a biologist turned executive university administrator. I think that position of practical experience entitles him to be called an “economist” – more so than economist and columnist Robert Samuelson – don’t you?
May 15th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Orson, perhaps you have noticed that you’re not getting much of a response. There’s a reason why, but I’ll leave it to you to figure out.