Media Resources

The Politics of Science

Frequently Asked Questions 

1. What does it mean to “politicize science”?
Politics is about bargaining, negotiation, and compromise toward some desired ends. Science is, among other things, about the systematic pursuit of knowledge. So the “politicization of science” is the use of the systematic pursuit of knowledge in the process of bargaining, negotiation, and compromise toward some desired end.

2. But that doesn’t necessarily sound bad?
As a society we want to use science in politics, as science provides a powerful means of understanding the world, and the likely consequences of alternative possible courses of action. People often use the terms “politics” and “politicize” with a strong pejorative connotation, but the reality is that politics is how the business of human relations gets done. What people typically mean when they express concern about the “politicization of science” is not the proper uses of science in politics, but the misuse or abuse of science in politics.

3. OK, then what does it mean to “misuse science”?
An upper-level seminar course took on this challenge in 2004, and came up with six different categories relevant to understanding “misuse.” The first two are not misuses, but often are characterized as such:

Cherry picking: When making an argument people often selectively choose or present information that makes their case look as strong as possible. Not only is this an effective tactic in argumentation; cherry picking is inescapable as all uses of facts are selective by their nature.

Dueling Experts: On complex scientific subjects there are typically many valid ways to interpret data and present findings. This is part of the richness of science, particularly regarding highly complex topics. In cases where experts disagree a decision maker frequently can and must select among expert opinions. This is exactly how the adversarial legal process works. Simply because experts disagree is not a sufficient basis for identifying a misuse of science.

The other four categories are examples of the misuses of science:

Mistake: A mistake is an unambiguous factual error.

Mischaracterization: A mischaracterization of science refers to the intentional or unintentional characterization of a body of research or a particular finding in a way that is simply incorrect or clearly misleading. There is clearly room for interpretation as to what constitutes mischaracterization versus cherry picking.

Delegitimization: Conflicts of interest, real or perceived, can delegitimize information-producing bodies to such a degree that whatever information they produce is discounted in the decision making process, eliminating any chance for knowledge to contribute to effective decision making.

Arguing morals/politics through science: Some issues are debated in terms of science, but are really about underlying politics or moral issues.

The full report can be found here.

4. Is it true that science is increasingly politicized and misused?
Yes. It does seem that there is a long-term trend of the politicization of science, and with it more complaints about misuse. One reason for this trend is that many issues of public importance involve a science and technology component, such as stem cell research, genetically modified organisms, and climate change, to name just a few. Another reason for this trend is that since the end of the Cold War, the scientific community has been asked to make its research more relevant to society. One response to such calls has been for scientists to become more involved in political debates.

5. Is the Bush Administration the worst misuser of science in history?
Perhaps, but no one has systematically looked at the issue. Such claims probably say more about the political predispositions of the one making the claim than anything else. It is true that the Bush Administration has shown a remarkable penchant for controlling information, and the area of science seems no different. But a close look at the history of science in policy and politics in various presidential administrations clearly shows that the misuse of science is a bipartisan affair, with a storied history.

6. Should we be concerned about the politicization of science by scientists?
Yes. Attention is typically placed on politicians and advocacy groups but much less attention is paid when scientists politicize science. On the one hand, when scientists use their science to advance political agendas, they are acting in the noble tradition of issue advocacy that forms the basis of modern democracy. But on the other hand, when all scientists act in this way, they may contribute to excessive partisanship and ultimately gridlock on important issues.

7. What is the alternative?
Some scientists – and more importantly scientific institutions – should serve as honest brokers of policy alternatives whose goal is not to reduce the scope of policy choice, as is the purpose of advocacy, but instead to clarify and perhaps even expand the scope of choice available to decision makers. By expanding the scope of choice new opportunities for political compromise might occur, moving beyond partisanship and gridlock. The scientific community is notable today because of the paucity of honest brokers of policy options.

8. Where can I read more?
Publications
Blog Posts