Comments on: The Problems with Calling for a Science President http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4247 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Hilary Burrage http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4247&cpage=1#comment-9178 Hilary Burrage Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:33:48 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4247#comment-9178 And I don't disagree with anything at all you say in your response, David, except... It's two-way; the media as such do have the capacity to create Frankenstein, and they sometimes use it! If they don't like a politician, they can themselves start a debate which is both anti-science and anti- that person. I'm not a resident of the USA (being a Brit..), but I have watched in awful fascination the development, transmitted largely from your side of the Pond to mine, of creationism and related ideas. (I've blogged on it, and on what I see as the economic influences behind it...) And that's before we get to stem cell research, nuclear, and all those other things that we'd like Dr President to address in an accountably reponsible and open way. However, maybe the pendulum is swinging a bit towards a more sensible debate? I heard the address by the UK's Science Minister at the Science Council last night (Ian Pearson, 6 November 2007) and he was very anxious, as I understood him, to emphasise that the way forward must be a conjunction of positions between the scientists, the government and the people. Science in / and Society seemed to be his theme! And so I guess say all of us?! Best, Hilary And I don’t disagree with anything at all you say in your response, David, except… It’s two-way; the media as such do have the capacity to create Frankenstein, and they sometimes use it! If they don’t like a politician, they can themselves start a debate which is both anti-science and anti- that person.

I’m not a resident of the USA (being a Brit..), but I have watched in awful fascination the development, transmitted largely from your side of the Pond to mine, of creationism and related ideas. (I’ve blogged on it, and on what I see as the economic influences behind it…) And that’s before we get to stem cell research, nuclear, and all those other things that we’d like Dr President to address in an accountably reponsible and open way.

However, maybe the pendulum is swinging a bit towards a more sensible debate? I heard the address by the UK’s Science Minister at the Science Council last night (Ian Pearson, 6 November 2007) and he was very anxious, as I understood him, to emphasise that the way forward must be a conjunction of positions between the scientists, the government and the people. Science in / and Society seemed to be his theme!

And so I guess say all of us?!

Best,
Hilary

]]> By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4247&cpage=1#comment-9177 David Bruggeman Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:49 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4247#comment-9177 I don't disagree with anything you've posted Hilary. I want to make the point that a presidential campaign (and coverage of it) is not framed in terms of what would make sound policy, but what would get a particular person elected. Since science and technology policy is not considered an issue that will get someone elected, arguments about how good science and technology policy (or science and innovation to reflect the campaign framing) would be good for the country are not going to get attention. Not from the media, and not from the candidates. As a community, we need to address how to make this important for those that campaign and those who cover campaigns. That's a different question from why this is important for the country. I wish it weren't, but it is. I don't have a ready answer, because even when trying to link science and technology policy with other issues that have traction in campaigns and the press (Iraq war, terrorism, health care), science and technology are not the first things that come to mind. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve posted Hilary. I want to make the point that a presidential campaign (and coverage of it) is not framed in terms of what would make sound policy, but what would get a particular person elected. Since science and technology policy is not considered an issue that will get someone elected, arguments about how good science and technology policy (or science and innovation to reflect the campaign framing) would be good for the country are not going to get attention. Not from the media, and not from the candidates.

As a community, we need to address how to make this important for those that campaign and those who cover campaigns. That’s a different question from why this is important for the country. I wish it weren’t, but it is. I don’t have a ready answer, because even when trying to link science and technology policy with other issues that have traction in campaigns and the press (Iraq war, terrorism, health care), science and technology are not the first things that come to mind.

]]> By: Hilary Burrage http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4247&cpage=1#comment-9176 Hilary Burrage Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:21:21 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4247#comment-9176 Robert Merton had a point, even though science translated into policy is never 'pure' science; it always becomes the art of the possible, in policy / political terms. Nonetheless, science policy needs to be based on evidence or, if not evidence, reasoning. How else can people (electors) decide if they think it's acceptable? Likewise, rational / scientific thought has a lot to offer other decisions too. We know that final outcomes will rest on extra-scientific as well as scientific considerations, but as much clarity as possible is essential... especially with the sorts of mighty budget and impact the USA has with expenditure in science. Let the debate and clarity be as transparent as possible, please. And let the media understand this is important, in whatever terms they choose. The ongoing discussion as above is, indeed, a good example of how things should be! Best, Hilary Robert Merton had a point, even though science translated into policy is never ‘pure’ science; it always becomes the art of the possible, in policy / political terms.

Nonetheless, science policy needs to be based on evidence or, if not evidence, reasoning. How else can people (electors) decide if they think it’s acceptable?

Likewise, rational / scientific thought has a lot to offer other decisions too. We know that final outcomes will rest on extra-scientific as well as scientific considerations, but as much clarity as possible is essential… especially with the sorts of mighty budget and impact the USA has with expenditure in science.

Let the debate and clarity be as transparent as possible, please. And let the media understand this is important, in whatever terms they choose. The ongoing discussion as above is, indeed, a good example of how things should be!

Best, Hilary

]]> By: SciBuff http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4247&cpage=1#comment-9175 SciBuff Thu, 01 Nov 2007 05:12:42 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4247#comment-9175 David Bruggeman, That’s a lot to think about. Really it’s too much for me to digest at one time, but it will make good leftovers later on. I think related to your questions of where does science fit with the President or government or democracies, is where does science fit in people’s lives. We the people. Is science a reliable tool like a ruler or a map? Science explains and measures. Is it the lubricant of capitalism? Build your economy with science, or TV advertising. Your choice. For me as science moves away from dropping cannon balls off the Tower of Pisa, to mass spectrometers and knockout mice, it becomes less of a visible tool and more of an exercise in faith. How does the internet work, or cell phones? I will never know. I’ll never really feel like I understand. Science has become so good that it has become more invisible to me with each passing year. The more we learn, the less I know. The less I know, the more I have to trust. I don’t always feel trusting. David Bruggeman,
That’s a lot to think about. Really it’s too much for me to digest at one time, but it will make good leftovers later on. I think related to your questions of where does science fit with the President or government or democracies, is where does science fit in people’s lives. We the people. Is science a reliable tool like a ruler or a map? Science explains and measures. Is it the lubricant of capitalism? Build your economy with science, or TV advertising. Your choice.

For me as science moves away from dropping cannon balls off the Tower of Pisa, to mass spectrometers and knockout mice, it becomes less of a visible tool and more of an exercise in faith. How does the internet work, or cell phones? I will never know. I’ll never really feel like I understand. Science has become so good that it has become more invisible to me with each passing year. The more we learn, the less I know. The less I know, the more I have to trust. I don’t always feel trusting.

]]>