The Age of Endarkenment
The Age of Endarkenment
Is the current politicization of science the death knell for the Age of Enlightenment asks Paul Starobin in a perceptive article in the National Journal of 7/29/06. (I’d provide a link, but a day pass to National Journal costs $25 and an annual subscription is $1,885. Try the library for this one.)
Starobin worries that Americans have abandoned the commitment to open-mindedness introduced by the Founding Fathers and maintained throughout most of U.S. history. He sees too many people on the left and right who view science through their ideological preconceptions. Religious conservatives reject Darwinian evolution, and vested energy interests dismiss evidence of human-caused climate change. Liberals reject E.O. Wilson’s new-Darwinian conception of sociobiology and the findings of neuroscience that indicate differences between male and female brains. Science produces a variety of “inconvenient truths” that stick in various ideological craws.
Starobin cites an April 2006 National Journal poll of 111 members of the House and Senate. When asked “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution?”, 98% of Democrats but only 23% of Republicans said yes. That’s politicized science.
The article points out that scientists are not free of self-interest or preconceptions. Many scientists depend of the federal government to support their research, and they understand that Democrats are more likely to increase government spending. He cites a 2005 Pew Research Center survey of a sampling of members of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, which found that 87% of these leading scientists and engineers disapproved of President Bush’s performance, whereas a fall 1997 survey found that 78% approved of President Clinton’s performance.
Starobin notes that Chris Mooney’s book The Republican War on Science includes good examples of Republicans dissing science, but he adds that Mooney chooses to ignore similar disrespect from Democrats. A good discussion of the book and the larger issue of politicized science in Daniel Sarewitz’s review in Issues in Science and Technology (http://www.issues.org/22.2/br_sarewitz.html).
Scientists and engineers undoubtedly have the right to vote Democratic, but they have to maintain the intellectual independence of science. They have to be ready to admit that sometimes reality is not what they wish it to be. Al Gore found the right phrase in “inconvenient truth,” but it’s a double-edged sword.
Is the current politicization of science the death knell for the Age of Enlightenment asks Paul Starobin in a perceptive article in the National Journal of 7/29/06. (I’d provide a link, but a day pass to National Journal costs $25 and an annual subscription is $1,885. Try the library for this one.)
Starobin worries that Americans have abandoned the commitment to open-mindedness introduced by the Founding Fathers and maintained throughout most of U.S. history. He sees too many people on the left and right who view science through their ideological preconceptions. Religious conservatives reject Darwinian evolution, and vested energy interests dismiss evidence of human-caused climate change. Liberals reject E.O. Wilson’s new-Darwinian conception of sociobiology and the findings of neuroscience that indicate differences between male and female brains. Science produces a variety of “inconvenient truths” that stick in various ideological craws.
Starobin cites an April 2006 National Journal poll of 111 members of the House and Senate. When asked “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution?”, 98% of Democrats but only 23% of Republicans said yes. That’s politicized science.
The article points out that scientists are not free of self-interest or preconceptions. Many scientists depend of the federal government to support their research, and they understand that Democrats are more likely to increase government spending. He cites a 2005 Pew Research Center survey of a sampling of members of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, which found that 87% of these leading scientists and engineers disapproved of President Bush’s performance, whereas a fall 1997 survey found that 78% approved of President Clinton’s performance.
Starobin notes that Chris Mooney’s book The Republican War on Science includes good examples of Republicans dissing science, but he adds that Mooney chooses to ignore similar disrespect from Democrats. A good discussion of the book and the larger issue of politicized science in Daniel Sarewitz’s review in Issues in Science and Technology (http://www.issues.org/22.2/br_sarewitz.html).
Scientists and engineers undoubtedly have the right to vote Democratic, but they have to maintain the intellectual independence of science. They have to be ready to admit that sometimes reality is not what they wish it to be. Al Gore found the right phrase in “inconvenient truth,” but it’s a double-edged sword.
posted by Kevin Finneran at
11:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home