Science and Politics
Michael F. Forlenza, P.G.
Editor, HGS Bulletin
There is an adage that oil and water don’t mix. The same might be said about science and politics. Both are necessary for our nation’s prosperity and both function best independently.
For most of the United States’ history, science and politics have coexisted amicably or even cooperatively. The government often provided funding and support of basic scientific research. Science provided the know-how to meet challenges in health care and medicine, climate and oceanographic research, protection of the environment and natural resources, atomic physics, and national defense.
Government often called on science and engineering to meet national goals or challenges. When America needed a victory during the dark days of the Cold War, the scientific and engineering communities responded to the Kennedy administration’s challenge of putting a man on the moon and bringing him home safely again. This stunning achievement rallied the nation’s aspirations, inspired a generation of students, and allowed the United States to claim superiority over communism.
United States universities have a global reputation for scientific excellence drawing students from around the world. Yet some see the Unites States preeminent stature in science slipping away. Overall, two-thirds of American science and engineering graduate students are foreign students, primarily from Asia.
As a professional and scientific organization, the Houston Geological Society has an interest in the advancement and teaching of science and scientific principles. The objectives in the HGS mission statement include promoting advancement in the geosciences and supporting the teaching of geosciences.
The American people depend upon federal agencies to promote scientific research and to develop science-based policies that protect the nation’s health and welfare. Historically, these agencies — such as the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Environmental Protection Agency — have had reputations for scientific distinction. However, leading scientific journals have questioned whether scientific integrity at federal agencies has been sacrificed to further a political and ideological agenda. As the editor of Science wrote in early 2003, there is growing evidence that the Bush Administration “invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation.”
Critics have claimed that, during the administration of George W. Bush, science and politics have become incompatible, even antithetical. Representative Henry A. Waxman of California requested an assessment of the Bush Administration's treatment of science and scientists. The result was a report titled Politics and Science in the Bush Administration, United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Special Investigation Division, August 2003. The report can be viewed at http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf.
The Waxman report noted in the introduction, that for the scientific process to succeed, political interference must be minimized and quoted former President George H.W. Bush:
“Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.” (National Academy of Sciences, 1990)
The report summarized:
“Federal agencies with global reputations for scientific excellence depend upon the objective input of leading scientists and the impartial analysis of scientific evidence to develop effective policies. The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly suppressed, distorted, or obstructed science to suit political and ideological goals. These actions go far beyond the traditional influence that Presidents are permitted to wield at federal agencies and compromise the integrity of scientific policymaking.”
In his 2005 book The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney documents the intellectual clash between scientists and politicians. Scientific advice, he writes, has been ignored, undermined, distorted or spun, and uncertainties magnified or even manufactured. “Science politicisation,” Mooney states, “threatens not just our public health and environment, but the very integrity of American democracy, which relies heavily on scientific and technical expertise to function.”
In 2005, President Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories. "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. The president made this declaration ignoring the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community regarding the validity of evolution and the concept of an ancient earth. Intelligent design, or creationism, has no supporting peer-reviewed scientific evidence and is untestable by the scientific method.
On November 4, 2008, we will choose a new president. This is a chance for a new start: a revitalized and mutually beneficial relationship between science and politics. Voters will choose between Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama to be the next leader of the United States. But what are the views of these two candidates regarding science?
The organization Science Debate 2008 has issued a series of questions about science policy to the presidential nominees. Science Debate 2008 is a concerned citizen’s initiative co-sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Council on Competitiveness, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, and endorsed by over