|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 05/04/2005 : 07:19:18
|
In today's online Chronicle of Higher Education (it's takes a very pricey subscription to access this online-- that, or a good university/library internet connection  ), Sanford Lakoff has a piece entitled "The Disconnect Between Scientists and the Public." In it, he notes that "many scientists -- including 28 Nobel laureates -- believe that the Bush administration is politicizing science to an unprecedented degree." He argues, however that the best response to this is for scientists to "rally behind efforts focused on critical social priorities, and in the process promote a better appreciation of the need to take science and scientists seriously" (SFN mission, anyone? (Well, sorta...)).
His list of complaints against the Bush administration are nothing new:quote:
President Bush is sticking to his policy of denying federal support for research on all but a small number of existing embryonic-stem-cell lines of dubious usefulness, against the opposition of thousands of cell biologists and even of prominent Republicans who are convinced that such research holds great promise. Both the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general and the Government Accountability Office have charged that the EPA ignored scientific evidence in developing its new rule for mercury emissions. Physicists and weapons experts have convincingly shown that a costly ground-based antiballistic-missile system now being built can easily be defeated. By claiming that "the jury is still out" on evolution, the president encourages fundamentalists to censor textbooks and force changes in school curricula. And most egregiously of all, the president refuses to acknowledge the mounting evidence of the reality of global warming and the dangers it poses.
Lakoff notes, of course, that science and politics have been mixed for many years. Still, he notes, it hasn't "completely surrendered its autonomy" thanks to philanthropic groups, who encourage research and study without as much government oversight/directive.
Still, he writes, work between government and science quote:
can actually be beneficial to both science and society. President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed a scientific advisory committee that gave him disinterested advice, freeing him from reliance on government agencies anxious to promote their own programs. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment played a similar role in enhancing the ability of federal lawmakers to make informed decisions about matters involving unfamiliar technical projects like the Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as Star Wars. The abolition of Eisenhower's committee by another Republican president, Richard M. Nixon, and of the OTA by a Republican-dominated Congress were self-inflicted wounds from which the government still suffers.
Other avenues of communication are still available. Many government agencies solicit the advice of outside scientists -- some of whom, however, are apt to be biased by their links to industry. The national academies are asked to report on important issues. Congressional hearings allow the voters and their representatives to hear differing opinions on scientific and technical issues.
Nevertheless, he continues, "a serious disconnect exists between scientists and the American public on many topics critical to our nation and the world." This, despite the fact that there is greater public involvment than ever. Indeed, it seems that this is the problem, as the public is, well, stupid.quote:
As the public-opinion analyst Daniel Yankelovich has pointed out, . . . "to the public, calling something a 'theory' means that it is not supported by tested, proven evidence. Whereas a scientist understands a theory to be a well-grounded explanation for a given phenomenon, the general public understands it as 'just a theory,' no more valid than any other opinion on the matter. (Evolutionary 'theory' and creationist 'theory' are, in this sense, both seen as untested and unproven 'theories' and therefore enjoy equivalent truth value.)"
And conservative ideologues, anxious to play down environmental threats, take advantage of the uncertainty that all good science entails. They cite a handful of dissenters to justify inaction on the greenhouse effect, despite the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that it is a real and serious problem.
Lakoff continuesquote:
That is the crux of the issue. Because the politicization of science is inescapable, scientists have to educate the public to understand technical issues, and the public has to exercise good sense in judging scientists' credentials and coming to grips with their discoveries and inventions. Even geniuses like Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell can make fools of themselves when they pontificate on world affairs. Einstein and Russell deserve to be remembered with honor for their 1955 manifesto calling for the renunciation of nuclear weapons, but Einstein was an unqualified pacifist from 1928 to 1933, when the rise of Nazism changed his mind, and Russell, who preceded Ronald Reagan in thinking of the Soviet Union as an evil empire, in the years between 1945 and 1953 urged its destruction by preventive nuclear war. When scientists discuss topics arising from their work, however, they should be taken seriously.
Much more needs to be done, by scientists and those who appreciate their contributions, to overcome public indifference or outright hostility to science. Programs of public education -- not just those of schools, universities, and museums, but also others like the Intel Science Talent Search, which promotes science projects for high-school seniors and rewards the winners with scholarships, and media productions like the Nova series for television -- are essential, as is the work of scientific spokesmen and science reporters. If ordinary voters are to make well-informed decisions about such complex matters as therapeutic cloning, hydrogen-based fuel cells, and genetically modified crops, they need more help than they can get from tabloid journalism and talk shows that deal more in sensationalism than reason.
He concludes that "a direct assault on the administration's ideological fixations and on public ignorance risks provoking partisan defensiveness and populist ranting about elitism. Practical efforts to tackle critical social problems may be more effective in focusing public attention on widely shared goals and helping to increase respect for science."
In all, he makes a number of important points that I have been thinking about myself for a long time. What worries me, though, is that the disemblers of misinformation has such a head start. Rush, Fox News, various fundamentalist Christian groups, and of course, the present administration, have the ears of tens of millions of Americans who have bought their anti-science rhetoric for the last 15-20 years. Meanwhile, people doing real science have, for a variety of reasons, been unwilling to engage in the debate.
It's a lot of ground to make up, but for the sake of the future we have to try!
|
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/04/2005 09:29:52
|
|
Topic Locked
