« Science + Politics »

I think the first commenter is right on the money when he suggests that interviewing researchers, instead of turning interest group press releases into article paragraphs, would give a more interesting article.

A major point that the article completely misses is the effect that the war on terror has had on immigration of scientists from the rest of the world to the US. In the long run, this will probably have a greater impact on US science than funding or congressional wrangling. Since the 1920's, the US has been able to import the rest of the world's scientific talent, but that policy effectively ended in 2002.

As a scientist, this really made me chuckle:

"In politics, certain facts are debated, which is an unfamiliar (and uncomfortable) experience to some scientists, but quite familiar to anyone who has inhabited the halls of Congress, says Kevles."

Are you kidding me? This guy was either misquoted, or has no clue what he's talking about!!!

Speaking as a scientist, practically all that scientists DO is debate about facts! There is no aversion to debate among scientists (at least any that I know!), and to suggest that scientists view their role as making "declarations from the mountaintop" is a complete load of hogwash!

I understand that these quotes come in the context of making a point that policy is more complicated than a simple translation of scientific fact into action, but give me a break! Saying that scientists are some poor, fragile bunch who can't deal with controversy and therefore think that someone is anti-Science when their advice is ignored seems pretty naive to me.

Sean D.-

Thanks. You might have a look at this paper by Naomi Oreskes, which includes the following statement in the abstract:

"In recent years, it has become common for opponents of environmental action to argue that the scientific basis for purported harms is
uncertain, unreliable, and fundamentally unproven. In response, many scientists believe that their job is to provide the “proof” that society
needs. Both the complaint and the response are misguided. In all but the most trivial cases, science does not produce logically indisputable
proofs about the natural world."

Oreskes, N., 2004. Science and public policy: what's proof got to do with it?, ESP, volume 7, pp. 369-383.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/oreskes_science_and_public_policy.pdf

This paper is particularly ironic because Oreskes far better known essay in science discussing 928 abstracts has been used not to suggest a "robust consensus" as she suggests, but "proof"!