Scientists and politics

Science policy journalist and author of the best-selling book, The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney had some suggestions for scientists late last week:

I have long thought that, if science supporters want a political scalp, [Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick] Santorum ought to be on their top list of targets. He's a strong sympathizer with anti-evolutionists, and thus on the wrong side of what is easily the most clear-cut political science issue of the day. Moreover, he's politically vulnerable. If Santorum goes down and scientists in Pennsylvania have rallied against him (something I've seen no evidence of as yet), presumably they can then claim some of the credit. And that, in turn, might deter future politicians from supporting anti-science causes.

Of course, if Santorum is dead anyway politically, it may not count as much of a victory. But the experience might nevertheless teach scientists a thing or two about engaging in politics in defense of scientific integrity and, especially, the theory of evolution. When it comes to politics, scientists really are in need of basic training.

Mooney is advocating that, not just science supporters, but scientists themselves organize to get involved in the grind of personal, partisan politics—targeting individual candidates for defeat in attempts to claim their "political scalp." I think this would be an extremely counter-productive activity that, contrary to Mooney's goal, would almost certainly destroy the strong and respected position that scientists and science currently have in the United States.

In surveys, science consistently shows up as one of the most respected professions. Even from this exalted position, scientists still have an extremely hard time teaching the public and policy makers anything beyond the mere basics of scientific knowledge, and sometimes haven't even been successful at that.

On the other hand, politics consistently shows up as one of the least respected professions. A substantial fraction of the people in this country, probably the vast majority, do not trust a thing politicians and their ardent supporters say.

If scientists were to participate en masse in the personal details of partisan politics, rather than elevating the respectability of politics by doing so, it is far more likely that scientists' credibility to the public at large would be irreparably damaged. Scientific results would be dismissed out-of-hand by huge groups of people merely based on whoever the authors, or the authors' political organization, had supported in previous campaigns. Few things are as capable of shutting off people's logic circuits as political accusations.

Furthermore, given the dominant role government money plays in research funding, explicit politicization of large groups of scientists would likely turn scientific research into just another patronage program, with elected officials doling out money to scientists who then support their campaigns.

Scientists should continue to speak out about important policy and educational issues for which their knowledge is crucial to informing the debate. In fact, they should increase how much they do so. And they should work harder at educating the general public about the scientific process as well as specific scientific knowledge. But I believe they are being far-sighted by staying away from publicly choosing and supporting their favorite candidates—and thereby frittering away their hard-earned social capital for short-term political gains.

Comments

[Daniel]

I think this gets back to an idea that Mooney seems to have been interested in for at least a few months - namely, the formation of Science PACs to promote science-friendly politics. A great idea in concept, but maybe difficult to get started and build up momentum on.

But a number of states (Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Nebraska) are starting "Citizens for Science" groups - is there any such group for Pennsylvania? That might be an avenue for action.

Also, one thing that's bugging me about the "IDEA" clubs springing up on some university campuses across the country is there are no student groups to counter that (other than small, unorganized cliques of evolutionary biology students). I wonder if the NCSE (or any group) is interested in encouraging something more organized.