Mission Creep in the War on Science
April 16th, 2008Posted by: admin
While reviewing the policy statements of the remaining presidential candidates with respect to science and technology, I noted what is to me an unfortunate use of the phrase “War on Science.”
Before I get into the details, a couple of necessary statements.
I am commenting strictly on the use of language. No endorsement, pro or con, is implied of the particular candidate.
While I welcome comments about what Chris Mooney and others mean for the phrase interpretations of what the “War on Science” is or should be are strictly my own. So are any misinterpretations.
A recent press release on aerospace and aviation funding from Sen. Clinton’s campaign appears to expand the meaning of the War on Science.
Most of the press release concerns traditional red meat for the scientific and technical communities. More funding for all the things those communities desire (additional federal research money, more fellowships, more incentives for R&D investment). Nothing objective, nothing new, nothing out of the ordinary. But one sentence caught my eye.
From the press release (specifically from part of a paragraph on initiatives for aerospace research and NASA activities):
Hillary will double NASA’s and FAA’s aeronautics R&D budgets as part of her plan to reverse the Bush administration’s war on science.
Sen. Clinton has consistently noted the various efforts of the Bush administration to willfully ignore or squash scientific evidence, as have Prometheus readers. That kind of activity is consistent with how I read Mooney’s formulation of the War on Science.
What is new to me is associating increased research budgets with this War on Science. This mission creep is misguided, and if others pick up on this and run with it, what power a War on Science may have will be undercut.
First, while individual areas of research may have suffered a drop in funding, research funding overall has not suffered cuts in overall dollars. Yes, there have been reductions in the rate of growth, but if there really was a battle in the War on Science over research funding, I would expect to see cuts in budgets.
You may be thinking “While the actual dollars may not have been cut, stagnant funding actually restricts the research enterprise.” But the value in the War on Science is in perception as much as anything. If the strength of your argument is in the details, it doesn’t have the quick punch of big numbers.
Second, and perhaps more important for those with an ideological stake in the conflict, limited research budgets have been a perennial complaint that crosses party lines and presidential administrations. It’s not a war when everyone’s against you – it’s a siege. While I’ve never thought the War on Science argument held a lot of sway outside of scientific communities, I know arguments for more money don’t hold much sway outside of scientific communities, since they compete with other arguments for more money.
This particular use of the War on Science appears to be isolated, but should Senator Clinton become the Democratic nominee, I will keep an eye out for more of this mission creep.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:41 am
It’s easy to talk about Bush in the war against science, but let’s talk about the real, insidious attackers. They’re the ones who say we vote on science. They say science is settled, so let’s hamstring the economy and make everyone suffer for the benefit of a few carbon traders. They’re the ones who seem to be bobbing their heads yes, but are really cutting the legs out from under scientific funding. Where would you rather the money be spent, on ever increasing energy costs or on research?
If you think this “conversion” to a carbon free economy is going to be painless and research money will still flow, consider the effect of cutting back on coal plants and how that’s increasing energy prices and aggravating this recession. If you think energy propaganda isn’t affecting the current economic situation, you have the wool pulled over your eyes.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:35 am
It’s worth bringing up Harvey Brooks’s distinction (from the mid-1960s) between “science for policy” and “policy for science.”
As Bruggeman notes, Mooney and most others have consistently used “War on Science” with respect to the former, while Clinton’s latest expands the boundary to comprehend the latter.
Does this enrich our understanding or blur important distinctions? I think the latter. Making “war on science” include funding decisions reinforces the impression that scientists are just another special interest group that wants its pork.
I’d contrast this with a parallel rhetorical move that enriches discussions: Pielke’s use of the phrase “linear model” in THB. Previous to THB, I had seen linear model used only in the context of funding policy (e.g., in Nathan Rosenberg’s and David Mowery’s masterful dissections of linear models of R&D and innovation), but by bringing the phrase into the vocabulary of science-for-policy, Pielke enriches the discussion and makes illuminating parallels between SfP issues (climate change, geological disposal of nuclear waste, etc.) and PfS issues (stem cell research, etc.).
It’s well known that there aren’t as hard lines between PfS and SfP as Brooks may once have thought, but it’s still worth noting that the lack of hard lines does not render the distinction meaningless, so we should be thoughtful about extending metaphors from one part of the science & policy domain into the other.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Harry Hamuss’s comments should be read in parallel to Pielke and Sarawitz’s 2002 paper “Wanted: Scientific Leadership on Climate,” (http://www.issues.org/19.2/p_pielke.htm) which asserted that we already know all we need to know scientifically to know that strong action on climate change is necessary and that more research aimed at reducing uncertainties would not significantly help policy but would probably impede it.
Pielke and Sarawitz riled many climate scientists with their implied accusation that research funding for climate science was a kind of hush money to keep the scientists quietly working in the lab instead of saying that we already knew as much about the effects of climate change as was feasible and necessary for policy purposes.
Interestingly, in the climate research community, James Hansen probably comes closest to what Pielke & Sarawitz were calling for, although to P&S he may be an object lesson in “be careful what you ask for.” (To be fair, P&S do emphasize the need for research on the effects of different policy interventions before committing to a particular course of action, such as carbon abatement. This distinguishes them from Hansen, who is single-mindedly focused on GHG mitigation.)