Jacques Laroche

Does Rationalism Matter? Why a scientific movement is essential for the future of America

We all have an unscientific weakness for always being in the right, and this weakness seems
to be particularly common among professional and amateur politicians... -Karl Popper

As the present presidential race illustrates, the past eight years of American politics have provoked a steady beating on the drums of change in America. In this story the carriers of the drumsticks are not the usual inciters of political reform – they are Scientists. Traditionally, scientists abstain from traversing the political landscape, and if they do get involved in policy, they are fragmented. But, because of the vociferous anti-scientific policies of the Bush Administration, they are uniting in an attempt to alert the public to the true dangers of a scientifically corrupt government.

Important groups in the movement:

Two notable groups in this growing movement are the Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA) and the Science Debate 2008 team. Focused on promoting sound science in government, SEA formed in late September of 2006 as a non-partisan 501(c)(3). Through an entrenched information providing network called SHARP, SEA allows members to track and contribute information on candidates, congressional representatives, and science policy issues. This information is then compiled and made searchable via zip code or presidential candidate and provided for free on the SEA webpage.

While SEA has taken a lead-to-water approach to the issue of creating a pro-science government, the Science Debate team is taking more direct action. Powered by the weight of its cosponsors and signatories, Science Debate 2008 is a grassroots effort to create a presidential debate focusing on issues relating to the environment, health and medicine, and science and technology policy. In addition to numerous organizations, academics, cultural leaders and scientists, nearly 30 Nobel and Crafoord laureates have signed on, and a debate has been scheduled for April 18th, 2008 at Philadelphia's Franklin Institute.

Examples of scientific abuses and specific cases of bad policy:

The reason why groups like SEA and Science Debate have begun to take an active interest in government is because of accumulating instances where government has rendered impotent the ability of science to inform policy. Some examples become apparent when exploring testimony from figures such as James Hansen, Bruce Buckheit and Andy Eller.

Hansen, who is the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has received notoriety for his research on climatology and testimony to congressional committees on climate change. In 2006 Hansen was featured in the New York Times stating that the Bush administration attempted to stop him from speaking out after he gave a lecture calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases.

At a talk on the Bush Administration's use and abuse of science in policymaking at the Berkley school of Journalism in late 2004, Bruce Buckheit and Andy Eller each aired their stories and offered analysis pointing toward a growing trend. Buckheit, a former Director at the EPA Air Enforcement Division, explained in detail how, because of White House interference, his division was powerless to enforce rules to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Following suit, Eller, a former biologist at the U.S. fish and wildlife services, illustrated the tactics used to fudge statistics in order to show that the Florida Panther was no longer an endangered species – paving the way to relaxed policies for commercial and other development.

The true danger:

When isolated, these and other stories might be written off for a host of dismissive reasons, but taken together, they point towards centralized policies that are rotting the entire fabric of the political process. What is happening is nothing less than the siege of logic, empiricism, rationality and independently verifiable truth. In its stead, our government is promulgating a different kind of truth: the truth of advertising. In other words, all that is necessary for credibility is the ability to influence opinion or circumvent will via might – and this is why scientists are taking action.
As an unnamed Bush official told reporter Ron Suskind, solutions don't emerge from a judicious study of discernable reality and empiricism is no longer a valid worldview. Instead, the aid believes “we're an empire now”, and because of this, “when we act, we create our own reality.” Rather than subscribing to this self-destructive, naïve world view, I think that as Kurt Gottfried stated at the aforementioned Berkely talk, “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but people are not entitled to their own facts” and “the laws of nature can not be repealed by congress or the white house”. If these simple rules are not adhered to Gottfried contends, we are in danger of inheriting “a government that is not in touch with reality [and] in the long run [can] only be maintained by adopting an ever-more authoritarian form of government.”

Jacques Laroche: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 6:44 AM, Mar 25, 2008 in Science Policy
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (6)