 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Michael Nelson, guest blogger
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Nobel Hype | Comment [1]
McCain and Obama Differ Little on Science Policy | Comment [5]
A Name on a Mailing List Is Forever | Comment
Stodgy NIH Announces New Program for Risky, Far-Out Reseach | Comment [2]
Obama Outlines Changes for Science Policy | Comment [4]
Featured Articles By the Author
Clinton, Obama Sensibly Decline Science Debate
Science Debate 2008, a puerile proposition enthusiastically embraced within and around the science establishment, has been sensibly brushed off by Senators Clinton and Obama.
The two, battling for the Democratic presidential nomination, were invited to “share their views on the environment, health and medicine, and science and technology policy” on April 18 in Philadelphia, a week before the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. The invitation was backed by the heavy artillery of science: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, the Council on Competitiveness, over 160 universities, and a requisite contingent of Nobel Laureates, some 25 of them in this instance.
The only common denominator among this melange is a ravenous appetite for federal funding of research, accompanied by minimal regulation. It might be noted, too, that there has been no dearth of primary oratory re the environment and health and medicine. What’s left to be said on these matters? Science alone has been virtually ignored. But whether that figured into the candidates’ negative RSVP’s is not known.
The invitation was a long shot, given that the science establishment, alone on the American landscape, takes a dainty approach to electoral politics. It does not organize to raise money to help its friends and hurt its enemies, a la physicians, gun owners, real-estate brokers, funeral directors , lawyers, veterans, and so on.
Instead, with deep faith in its own virtue, and unalloyed confidence in the support of the American people — as medievally ignorant of science as they may be — the science establishment tells stories about the worth and value of research, and counts on politicians’ good sense to provide higher appropriations. For added measure, the appeals are braced with alarmist warnings of threats to American leadership in science from China, Russia, Brazil, etc. Yet to be explained is why the U.S. should fear a cancer cure from abroad.
Scientists are understandably convinced that their work is crucially important for the well-being of the nation. And they are sincere in their belief — and correct — that potentially valuable research is mindlessly neglected for lack of relatively small sums. But the view from politics is that science is doing reasonably well at a very tough time. Moreover, long service on Capitol Hill is not needed to conclude that science is financially insatiable, that no budget increase can quell the clamor for more. The budget of the National Institutes of Health was fast-track doubled between 1998 and 2003, whereupon the mandarins of biomedical research mournfully proclaimed the urgency of even more money.
Constant surveying of what’s on the mind of the American people is yet to find the state of science ranking high, or even making the top 25. War, the economy, health care, education, the environment — these are the issues that for good reasons concern the voters, few of whom have ever heard of the National Science Foundation and its urgent need for continuous budget growth.
If the science establishment wants politicians to pay attention to its needs and show up for its debates, a couple of million dollars in campaign donations would do wonders.
Meanwhile, the promoters of Science Debate 2008 are inviting Clinton and Obama to debate prior to the Oregon primary next month.
In Pennsylvania, the campaign calendar is crowded, but the two contenders have found time to attend a “compassion forum” where they will discuss “policy and moral values.”
Posted at 12:17:21 PM on April 10, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: A Manhattan or Apollo Project for Energy? What Nonsense
Next: Science Rattles the Tin Cup in Washington
But HOW can we SOLVE those problems of War (international scientists working TOGETHER for a common goal, better technology to detect those IEDs, nuclear material security), health care (earlier detection of disease and better treatment discovered by scientific research, stem cells), education (engaging hands-on active learning, synthesis of knowledge, exciting research), environment (techniques to scrub and sequester CO2, more efficient solar, wind, fusion and safer nuclear fission with new reactor designs, remediation of waste via genetically engineered bugs)? Hmmmm. I think SCIENCE has a chance. Are there any other options?
— G. Spiczak · Apr 11, 06:42 AM · #
To G. Spiczak:
I wish that “science” were able to “solve” these problems, but it’s easy to list ways that science can just as easily make them worse: worse health through the creation of new foods and new addictions, worse education through new technologies that encourage shallow knowledge, a worse environment by producing new pollutants, and, of course, worse war through the creation of more powerful weapons.
I am not anti-science by any means, but it’s a naive claim that “science” holds the key to a better world, and it’s often wrapped up in an implicit claim to power (because, who better to decide national policies than professional scientists?). Every other department in the government makes similar claims (funding education will provide for the future, future defense will provide security, funding Medicare will care for the poor, etc., etc.). While I think that the American people ought to support scientific research, I am by no means convinced that science will “solve” the problem that we live in imperfect world populated by imperfect people.
— mike · Apr 11, 07:12 AM · #
I agree in part with mike, in that a faith-based approach to the ability of science (and thus, implicitly, scientists) to solve all our problems can lead to genies popping out of bottles that are difficult to put back in; you have both your Jonas Salks and your Edward Tellers. But science pursued under policy set by an educated citizenry could indeed hold the key to a better world. We need to do a better job of education to make sure we have that necessary condition.
— Bob M. · Apr 11, 07:31 AM · #
Mr. Greenberg’s claim that Senators Clinton and Obama should avoid the science debate may be correct, but not for the reasons he lists. Furthermore the cliam that the “heavy artillery” of science is behind the debate simply so that they can increase the funding for science is disingenuous. Scientists as individuals are also citizens of this nation, who live in neighborhoods, have children, and contribute to their communities. As an individual scientist, I support the science debate because I am deeply concerned about the direction of and preservation of democracy in this country. I am not concerned that my own individual career might be enhanced by supposed additional funding a science friendly administration might provide, rather I am deeply aware of and afraid of the social consequences of continuing to support anti-science administrations.
The case of ignoring anthropogenic climare change and using the political influence of the White House to derail measures that need to be taken now to forstall future disasters is a clear and obvious example of what can happen with an Ostrich administration. However, there are other, more subtle problems which emanate from the atmosphere of such administrations. For example, how can it be that in the 21st century with over 149 years of irrefutable scientific evidence that you have elected politicians claiming that evolution is not a scientific fact?? President George W. Bush Jr. has said that creationism should be given equal time in the classroom. Last year three major Republican candidates claimed that they did not believe evolution was correct. Some may naively argue that this is there “right”, but we should be deeply concerned that our public is electing individuals to high office who fail basic critical thinking and sicentific literacy. Of course, there are major implications which follow from the lack of clear support for science in the government, one of those things is the difficulty of supporting it in our nations classrooms. While American children still are exposed to toxic nonsense of the creationist vitriol, other major industrialized nations move forward with the scientific applications that result from a solid grounding in evolutionary theory in biology. Thus, the claim by sicentists that science matters is not without important implications in the real world of the 21st century.
Senators Clinton and Obama may be correct for declining the debatre, since undoubtedly the subject of evolution will come up. If they support the teaching of evolution and reject creationism and all its modern guises (intelligent design), then they will undoubtedly lose votes to McCain. It is well known that McCain already has ties to poliically right wing and fundamentalist ministers, a Democratic debate on sceince would only aid him. Sad but true.
— Dr. Joseph L Graves Jr · Apr 11, 08:37 AM · #
I would, however, like to have McCain be asked about evolution in a national debate. I think it would be extremely healthy for the American public to hear a potential president who will be responsible for budgetary decisions on funding support for the NSF , the NIH and other federal scientific agencies to deny evolution, especially as 2009 approaches, the 200th anniversary of the birth of Darwin which should bring even more visibility to the issue. Surely, that will help educated voters who are much more silent about evolution than the noisy right-wing advocates of creation science to realize what it would mean to have either such ignorance at the highest level of the nation, or, much more the case since, after all, McCain is an intelligent educated individual, such hypocrisy.
— Susan · Apr 11, 09:51 AM · #
“For added measure, the appeals are braced with alarmist warnings of threats to American leadership in science from China, Russia, Brazil, etc. Yet to be explained is why the U.S. should fear a cancer cure from abroad.”
Are you serious?! No-one fears a cancer cure from abroad, they fear that in a climate hostile to science (e.g. BushCo’s restrictions on stem cell research) scientists will defect to friendlier countries. A healthy scientific establishment is critical to a healthy economy (why do you think Silicon Valley is located near to Stanford and Berkeley?) but if you don’t give two hoots about developing nations taking the lead in science and engineering, then I hope you enjoy watching the US dollar continue to decline and our economy go down the tubes.
— Steve · Apr 11, 10:16 AM · #
Is support for science on the decline in the US? Outsourcing, grad programs largely comprised of foreign nationals, stem cell research going elsewhere, rising credence for junk science, you name it say yes. No matter what might happen to shake us from our complacency, we aren’t likely to have another resurgence to match the post-Sputnik period simply because we haven’t tended to the pipeline of home-grown talent to feed it. It’s naive to assume we can continue to mine other countries for scientific talent, especially as they develop and prosper. I for one would like to hear the extent to which our potential next President comprehends the enormity of the problem. The ignorance and lack of vision of our current one has taken what was already a bad situation and made it worse.
— CW · Apr 11, 12:00 PM · #