Comments on: Obama’s “War on Science”?

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:09:44 +0000

This article was cited at Volokh Conspiracy and part of the discussion criticized your book, an extended book review arguing there doesn’t really seem to be a “Republican” War On Science as such, though even he admitted there were problems in certain areas. The implication, however, is that Democrats had problems too.

This post would have been an interesting thing to know about then.

By: JMW

JMW — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:25:28 +0000

One should also remember that the US Federal government employs 10s if not 100s of thousands of people. Some of them are not Bush-era ideologues buried like land mines in the landscape of government, but will still have anti-science attitudes…or even an attitude of “science is one factor but not the most important in decision making.” Short of having Obama lead every single decision by hand, or replace all government decision makers with his hand-picked candidates, one cannot blame him for all actions of government.

Without having read the book, I can’t comment on the alleged Bush-era consistency of government decision-making.

By: Tom Hill

Tom Hill — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:38:18 +0000

I look forward to watching this develop. I’ve maintained for a long time that there is a political war with/on/using science which has been developing over time, in that any politician will cherry-pick the science that they need to try and advance their agenda. Anyone who agrees with the agenda (usually closely related to wether the (R) or the (D) at the end of their name matches that of the politician with the agenda) doesn’t dig too deep into the sources, anyone who disagrees with the agenda does dig into sources until they find information which discredits the science in their mind. In the end, average people just get confused and/or tired of the constant back and forth.

The internet has given new light into the political process just coming into its own, and much of the political dealings going on in the dark before now have new scrutiny. The political system hasn’t adjusted to the new reality.

By: Chris Mooney

Chris Mooney — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:34:43 +0000

Folks–Agreed it is not a war on science, nor is it systematic, etc. But the claims are worrisome; they are coming from important groups and the LA Times has given them airing. That his how the claims against Bush also started. I don’t expect this to develop into anything like what happened there, but I am glad this issue is being flagged now so that it can be addressed by the administration. Something tells me they will go about that process very differently than the last one did (just thinking back painfully to John Marburger trying to defend the indefensible on behalf of the president).

By: David

David — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:57:29 +0000

The majority of the rules and policies of these organizations are put in place by their original mandate and mid-level management interpretations. Then it becomes ingrained in their bureaucratic memory. With the untold thousands of pages of regulations and interpretations that get shuffled back and forth in Washington on a daily basis, nobody can keep up with it. It is too much to process. The President can set the tone but the mid-level management is where these stupid interpretations of rules and mistakes happen. Many of these people who approve and authorize things have probably been in place since the Nixon administration. They are not anywhere near the level that would be associated with any administration.

More likely they pressure scientists not to report stuff to hide what a crappy job they are doing overseeing things than it being a war on science. Likewise, they approve drilling or construction to just “go with the system” and maintain their anonymity rather than sticking their neck out and forwarding anyone’s political agenda.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:21:00 +0000

I think that the main gripe here centers around the failure to release official binding policy guidelines from OSTP. Dan Froomkin’s piece in HuffPo (I think it was him) last week centered on that, and involved the same primary cast of characters. PEER and UCS are just frustrated that a deadline wasn’t met, and they are ringing the alarm bells when I would argue there is no fire.

The actual examples here are not proof of any systematic ignorance or disruption by the Obama administration. They are extremely specific and unique events. Eight years ago it was entire agencies on lockdown. This is tame stuff. They show that there might be something to worry about, but until these become the rule rather than the choice exceptions (as these examples stand now), maybe the LA Times just wanted to sell some papers.

Maybe the editors were pissed at LeBron stealing Kobe’s spotlight and spoke up for the west-siiiiide?

By: Guy

Guy — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:20:34 +0000

There’s always this tug-o-war between science (protect the environment) and industry (rape the environment). Industry wants to covert raw materials into products they can sell and make profits from. Science tells us that we need to protect the environment and maintain sustainability even if will lose short-term profitability. Historically, the far-right cares mainly about industry while the far-left cares more about science and the environment. The moderates can lean either way, depending on the current economic/political climate. Bush was far-right, thus you got this whole “War on Science” with some of it’s effects still lingering today. Obama is more of a moderate. If you always want science to win then you need someone more to the left but this is unlikely to happen because of the economic reality of politics.

By: Dave in Alaska

Dave in Alaska — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:02:59 +0000

The trouble with government grants: http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller23.html

By: GM

GM — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:44:42 +0000

10. Rob Knop Says:
July 14th, 2010 at 10:04 am
The cynical part of me– which, in this case, is almost all of me– thinks that at some level it almost doesn’t matter who is president. There is the Washington way of doing things, and the primary difference between the republicans and democrats at the elected official level is the rhetoric they use and the special interests they cater to. (There are documented statistical differences among the voting public, such as acceptance of science, as has been shown on this blog.)

It needs not be “the cynical part” of you, I think it is actually quite correct an observation. If you imagine an hierarchical clustering of the positions of your typical democrat, your typical republican, and your typical scientist, it would probably have two very long branches with two tiny twigs – a republican and a democrat one – on one of them…

By: MT-LA

MT-LA — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:28:36 +0000

“…how this administration’s scientific record (which up to now has been very good) will ultimately be weighed.”

Apparently, this administration’s *public* record on science has been very good, but the LA Times article clearly calls into question the behind-the-scenes record. It is the behind-the-scenes details that concern me; the president can be quite convincing when behind the podium, but I need to know that his rhetoric is being followed up by soild action.

SK & CM: I sincerely hope that you will continue to update us on this situation. One of the major reasons I support democratic candidates in office is the perception that they will support the sciences more than republican candidates. If the current administration is turning a blind eye to science – or worse, dismissing science in deference to the all powerful “economy” – then the public should know the players involved and their roles.