 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
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
Brainstorm is The Chronicle Review's team of bloggers on ideas, culture, and the arts.
Gina Barreca
Mark Bauerlein Marc Bousquet Laurie Fendrich Dan Greenberg Stan Katz Stephen Joel Trachtenberg Bob Zemsky Recent PostsWhere Are Arts and Humanities in the D.C. Money Chase? | Comment Rockefeller's Gift to Harvard | Comment [10] Scientists on the Sidelines | Comment [1] Science and the Tin Cup: Some Further Discussion | Comment [3] As Usual, Few Women Elected to NAS | Comment [2] Featured Articles By the Author
A Debate on Science? Ho-Hum
Our scientists justifiably feel mistreated and neglected on important policy matters. Their expertise on climate change, stem cells, and other crucial matters has been rebuffed. When government-employed researchers want to dissent, they’re often muzzled. Scientists rank low in the pecking order of George W. Bush’s administration. Money for research is inadequate, causing layoffs at laboratories and cancellation of important projects. Now, in response to neglect and abuse, scientists are going political. Sort of. By raising money and mobilizing votes for science-supporting candidates in the primaries and the coming election? No, that’s not the scientists’ mode of politicking. Though the grievances are great, the response is characteristically tepid. Thousands of scientists, from Nobel laureates to lab technicians, as well as many others have signed a petition, “Call for a Presidential Debate on Science & Technology.” “As you watched the scores of U.S. Presidential debates,” the petition announcement states, “did you ever wonder why there has been no debate devoted to policy surrounding what may be the most important social issue of our time: Science and Technology? We did and we want to make sure it will happen…. Please join us and make Science Debate 2008 a reality.” Listed as debate topics are the environment, health and medicine, and science and technology policy. Now, there’s no harm and probably some benefit in urging the candidates to pay attention to these topics, though it might be noted that the environment and health care have received a lot of attention on the campaign trail. Not so science, however, with the exception of a little-noticed speech by Senator Clinton in early October. But in response to the wonderment about the dearth of science in the campaign, the explanation is that the public knows and cares little about science policy, an arcane topic even for many scientists. Presidential debates focus on issues of wide concern, with the list in the current campaign pretty much limited to the economy, health care, immigration, the war, and the environment. Any candidate left standing at this stage, can deftly squirm his or her way around any issue, including science policy. It is predictable that they’re all for science, with careful attention to the role of science in promoting economic growth; they’re also for educating home-grown scientists, and for maintaining high ethical standards in research. Though the petitioners will be delighted by a debate on science, the rest of America will tune into another show. Scientists have remained aloof from major organized political efforts since their sole big foray into politics, in 1964, when they rallied against Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater because of his braggadocio about nuclear war. Since then, except for a few minor efforts, they’ve taken an individual approach to politics, rather than going political en masse and raising money to support friends of science and oppose detractors. Contrast the political timidity of science with the formidable clout of the National Rifle Association. Sure, the pernicious NRA has lost a few in recent years, particularly after one or another bloody gun outrage. But out there on the campaign trail, all the candidates, without exception, tread gingerly on issues of concern to the NRA — which responds to opposition with money and votes. Politicians may like science, if they notice it at all. But they fear the NRA. Have a nice debate. Image adapted from a photo by Flickr user said&done Posted at 10:16:38 AM on January 20, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergCommentsCommenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Life on Campus Looks Good to This Visitor
|
If scientists acted like the NRA, then they wouldn’t be the type of people who are able to do good science. They would be aggressively politicized people who lead with their opinions and use rationalization rather than reason.
And they wouldn’t have much time to do science either.
I think we’re living in a rabidly politicized era. I pray that American science survives. I’m not sure that it will.
— Patricia · Jan 20, 10:51 AM · #
This is a far greater indictment of politicians and their cronies. Unfortunately higher ed administrators are not much different. They like science for two reasons. First, when it brings in good publicity and second, when it brings in cash. For those of us who work in science that is neither high dollar nor high publicity we are already doa.
— john · Jan 21, 08:28 AM · #
Right, John, except that it is FIRST, when it brings in cash, and SECOND, when it brings good publicity (of course, because, otherwise, one must BUY good publicity). So, it is ALL about money, and not much about valuing what science accomplishes in nonfinancial returns. And, Patricia, I agree with you entirely. The NRA has a simple (and simplistic) message. Messages regarding science are complex and difficult to understand—for everyone. A simple message, like “more science is better” or “increase funding to science by 10% per year” is not so easy to support or defend. And, by the way, why are not environmental science, health science, and economic science, not seen as part of science? They all are dependent to some degree on NIH and NSF and other funding.
— Joe Erwin · Jan 21, 09:25 AM · #