Tyson Weighs in on “The War on Science”
January 10th, 2009Posted by: admin
From The Washington Post’s TV Column, of all places, is a report of Hayden Planetarium Director (and NOVA host) Neil de Grasse Tyson talking about the Bush Administration’s “War on Science.” I note that the Post writer is known for a snarky tone, so filter the account accordingly.
Aside from the oddity of discussing this at a press tour for TV critics, the novelty of this account is Tyson noting how any ‘war’ on science at most affected a few fields. From the article:
“[Tyson] explained patiently that while the Bush administration “is widely regarded as campaigning against science,” there were, in fact, “very specific branches of science that were resisted in the Bush administration” but “it would not be correct to say that all branches of science were thusly affected.”
That said, the affected areas were “quite tasty to the press because they involved global climate and stem cell and this sort of thing,” Tyson said, flashing critics his blindingly brilliant made-for-TV super-smile.”
From the article, it appears that Tyson had other things to say about Obama’s possible science policies. I’ll post about that should I manage to find a transcript of his remarks.
January 10th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
I guess you can’t say it, but I can. Any administration that would tolerate the outlandish abuses of science, decency, honesty, integrity, etc… shown by James Hansen of NASA (as well as many others) could not possibly be blamed for “a war on science.” If Obama agrees with all the nuts, will that be “peace with science?” Good Grief!
January 11th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
A registered Democrat, I find the characterization of Republicans waging a “War on Science” by some members of my party embarrassing. Most of the conservative opposition to policies regarding embryonic stem cell research, climate change mitigation, etc. is based on moral (religious) or ideological (libertarian) grounds. Orthodox Jews aren’t waging a “War on Livestock” by refusing to touch pork.
I’ll stipulate that some Republicans in this administration have misrepresented science just as they misrepresented intelligence leading to the Iraq invasion, but this was because they were consolidating power, which is not a strictly Republican phenomenon.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:41 am
If Republicans in the administration were misrepresenting intelligence in order to consolidate power, what excuse did Bill, Hillary, Al, Madeline, Tom, and the dozens of other Democrats in Washington have for making the same claims about Saddam? And every other intelligence agency in the world — were they trying to consolidate power, too?
Given the nonstop political war that the CIA has waged against Bush throughout his tenure, why didn’t we get any leaks at the time “exposing” all this “misrepresentation of intelligence”?
January 14th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to invite a political debate on the Iraq war-I guess I chose my analogy poorly. But to answer your question, yes. The Clinton administration was just as interested in consolidating power as the Bush administration. As I said, this attitude is not a strictly Republican phenomenon.
Also, you’ll notice that I did not say that President Bush “lied.” I don’t think that he had the intent to deceive. Rather, it seems now in hindsight, that some members of his administration presented, to the president and to the public, a cherry-picked analysis of the threat Iraq posed. I doubt that this is anything less than the modus operandi of politicians, but it is, by my reasoning, “misrepresenting intelligence.” I expected it from Bush. I’m expecting it from Obama and I’ll expect misrepresentation of facts (intelligence, science, whatever) of every executive in my lifetime.