Sarewitz on Mooney
December 19th, 2005Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Center affiliate and long-time collaborator Dan Sarewitz has posted an advance copy of his review of Chris Mooney’s book “The Republican War on Science,” forthcoming in Issues in Science and Technology. The review can be found here in PDF.
Sarewitz writes, “The Republican War on Science offers a catalog of Republican-led confrontations with mainstream science, ranging from attacks on evolution and denial of climate change tocthe stacking of government advisory committees with industry scientistscand the blocking of federal funds for stem cell research. As an unapologetic critic of the Bush administration, I was eager to read a penetrating political analysis of how the current regime has sought to wring partisan advantage from the complex and difficult relationship between politics and science. Alas, what I found was a tiresome polemic masquerading as a defense of scientific purity.”
For a contrasting viewpoint see this favorable review of Mooney’s book by John Horgan in the New York Times, which finds agreement with Mooney that Democracts seek truth, while Republicans seek God and money. Horgan writes that telling good science from bad, “can indeed be difficult, especially if all the scientists involved are trying in good faith to get at the truth, and Mooney does occasionally imply that demarcation consists simply of checking scientists’ party affiliations. But in many of the cases that he examines, demarcation is easy, because one side has an a priori commitment to something other than the truth – God or money, to put it bluntly.”
Sarewitz picks up on this point as well and rejects it in no uncertain terms, “Mooney tells a story of bad, duplicitous, politically motivated scientists and policymakers on the Republican side, and good, honest, disinterested scientists and policymakers on the Democratic side… Yet Mooney never confronts the reality that scientists on his side of the fence must have values, interests, and personalities just as surely as those on the other side, whom he portrays as consistently corrupt. There can be only one of two reasons for this neglect. Either Mooney has chosen not to portray the values of scientists who line up on the Democratic side because he knows it would weaken his argument and undermine his claim that he is only defending the purity of science, or he actually believes that the scientists on his side are uninfluenced by their values and interests. The reader must therefore decide if the narrator is unreliable or just hopelessly naive.”
December 19th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
“There can be only one of two reasons for this neglect. Either Mooney has chosen not to portray the values of scientists who line up on the Democratic side because he knows it would weaken his argument and undermine his claim that he is only defending the purity of science, or he actually believes that the scientists on his side are uninfluenced by their values and interests.”
Gotta love those false dichotomies. But is it possible that there is another alternative? That Mooney emphasizes Republican perfidy because, as he has said (as has Horgan), they have been significantly worse than the Democrats? And that Mooney is particularly anxious to avoid the traditional news fallacy of the false balance, having argued so often against it?
December 19th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
“Mooney tells a story of bad, duplicitous, politically motivated scientists and policymakers on the Republican side, and good, honest, disinterested scientists and policymakers on the Democratic side… Yet Mooney never confronts the reality that scientists on his side of the fence must have values, interests, and personalities just as surely as those on the other side, whom he portrays as consistently corrupt. There can be only one of two reasons for this neglect. Either Mooney has chosen not to portray the values of scientists who line up on the Democratic side because he knows it would weaken his argument and undermine his claim that he is only defending the purity of science, or he actually believes that the scientists on his side are uninfluenced by their values and interests. The reader must therefore decide if the narrator is unreliable or just hopelessly naive.”
God this stuff is getting tiresome. It seems Sarewitz views the lack of above-it-all, pox-on-both-their-houses “balance” as an argument against the book in and of itself. But that’s just begging the question. Mooney is not talking about good and evil scientists, he’s talking about the robust scientific consensus in various areas, and the way various policymakers relate to it. All policymakers have goals and preferences, but some twist or distort the scientific consensus in pursuit of those goals and some don’t.
If Sarewitz doesn’t think that Republican policymakers are by far the worst offenders in this area, why doesn’t he contest some of Mooney’s examples? Or offer some counterexamples? Or something other than this mind-numbing posturing of being above mere partisanship. It’s an affectation, not an argument.
In a political climate like today’s where one side is so obviously dominant, power-wise, and so obviously venal and corrupt, this habit you and Sarewitz have of tip-toeing around with your petticoats held above the mud is no virtue — not politically, not morally, and not on the substantive merits.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Sarewitz’s review really wasn’t arguing for “balance” at all. It was arguing that if you set up a false picture of one side being objective, interest-free scientists and the other side misusing and abusing science, then you are going to end up shooting yourself in the foot. Focusing on the “war on science” distracts us from the real disagreements, which are a clash of values and interests.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Dave -
Sarewitz has laid out his argument in some detail here. It’s worth reading.
The reason I find Sarewitz’s “scientization” argument persuasive, and not Mooney’s book, is
that Sarewitz’s case resonates with my personal experience as a working journalist. I cover
two issues on which political disputants contest the scientific consensus – climate change
and nuclear waste disposal. On climate change, it is the right sidestepping the consensus
and cherry-picking outliers. On nuclear waste and the risks of low-dose radiation, the left
cherry-picks the outliers.
Mooney has ably catalogued the sins of the right. They do seem to be more voluminous. But his underlying thesis anchoring the misuse of science to conservatism misses the boat completely. The fact that “everyone does it” does make this a fundamentally different sort of problem, that is not solved by simply getting those pesky conservatives whipped into shape.
It is rooted in a deeper problem, and until we recognize and think well about that deeper problem we’re not going to make much progress.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:54 am
I like Sarewitz’s perspective on this book but I would like to take it a step further. I question the premise… there is no Republican war on science. It is a phony accusation and you are hearing that from someone who prefers the bubonic plague, (its controllable and arrestable), to the Bush administration.
Most of the anecdores mentioned by both reviews lead back to the dogmas of certain religious fundamentalists. Their objective is to have that dogma prevail. They do not call for a war on science. They are as dependent on science as are most modern folks. They go after science only on an ad hoc basis when it gets in their way. We all better realize that they are pushing their agenda from the highest levels.
Those anedotes that depict business interests within the administration as “warring” on science are silly. Science is the very foundation of modern business but where there is conflict, you can bet that business will loook after its own interests. It always has since the founding of the Republic. What is different right now is that it is on top and on the inside.
Framing an issue is important (thanks for the site reference, Roger), This is a religious attack on science not a war by the Bush administartion.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Dave Roberts-
Thanks for your comments. Where I think you and Sarewitz would agree 100% is in your characterization of the Bush Administration. Sarewitz is hardly above partisanship, just ask him.
Where he and you appear to disagree lies in your simplistic, black-and-white description of science in policy as reflecting a “robust scientific consensus in various areas”. Sarewitz has written extensively about this subject and I suggest you have a look.
He suggests that if we want to debate our different values then we should debate our different values, rather than pretend, as Mooney does, that one side has values and the other truth. Such a framing does a diservice both to science and political debate. Have a look at the last paragraph in Sarewitz’s review.
FYI, word on the street is that Sarewitz will be entering the blogosphre in some fashion early 2006, and so you will be able to engage him directly. We’ll link when this happens.
Have a nice holiday;-)
December 20th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
I think many of these comments rest on a misunderstanding of Mooney’s basic argument.
I do not think he does, or would, argue that “one side has values and the other truth,” as Roger and another commenter implied. That would indeed be naive and silly.
The point is that both sides have values and policy preferences. Both sides argue for them. In the course of doing so, one side twists and misrepresents scientific consensus occasionally, and the other side does it A LOT and SYSTEMATICALLY. Doing so is an essential tool in their political arsenal. Their movement is, at least in part, built on it.
If you (or Sarewitz, or whoever) think that argument is false, then argue against it. But trying to put these goofy arguments in Mooney’s mouth does no one any good — it’s just a way to preen about your own elevation above grubby political debates.
Now, I don’t think Mooney explicitly says so, but I would add the following:
The reason Republicans rely so heavily on distorting science these days is that their values (far right Christian values and oligarchic corporate values) are not persuasive. They can’t win the value arguments on moral grounds, so they try to gin up bogus scientific rationales.
Most people wouldn’t accept that it’s a moral imperative to keep Terry Shiavo’s brain dead body breathing, so Frist has to lie and diagnose brain activity.
Most people wouldn’t accept that a clump of cells has the same moral status as a grown person, so Bush has to lie about the number of stem cells available for research.
Most people wouldn’t accept that the North American way of life is so inviolate that it should not be altered even if it is set to cause billions in damage and untold human suffering in poorer parts of the world, so they create and fund a group of contrarians to say global warming is a myth.
Most people wouldn’t accept that those who fail to follow God’s alleged orders to stay celibate until marriage deserve to contract AIDS, so they lie about the efficacy of celibacy-based sex ed programs.
The list goes on and on and on and on. At some point, y’all need to get a little bit more upset about that and a little bit less upset about Mooney’s willingness — a sin in the eyes of bourgeois centrist intellectuals — to call a group of venal scumbags what they are: venal scumbags.
Yes, “ultimately,” the problem of science politicization is deeper than mere partisanship. But right now, in *this* world, in *our* political situation, the problem is one side crapping all over science. After five years of this, I’m through trying to maintain credibility among the chattering classes by droning on about the “deeper” flaws of human institutions. It’s time to enter the temporal realm, the real world, and fight our way back to sanity.
(And yes, happy holidays to you as well, Roger, and to all your commenters!)
December 21st, 2005 at 9:07 am
Dave-
You write “I do not think he does, or would, argue that “one side has values and the other truth,” as Roger and another commenter implied. That would indeed be naive and silly.”
Well, here is what Mooney writes in the intro to his book: “Companies subject to government regulation regularly invoke “science” to thwart federal controls and protect the bottom line. Religious conservatives, meanwhile, seek to use science to bolster their moralistic agenda… this book explains how our nation gave rise to a political movement whose leaders, to put it bluntly, often seem not to care what we in the “reality-based community” know about either nature or ourselves.”
Pretty naïve and silly.
I’d encourage you to read what Sarewitz has actually written on these subjects, as well as the many relevant commentaries on this blog that provide a wide range of evidence contrary to the Mooney thesis. But most of all, I’d encourage you to read Mooney’s book, because it does not say what you think it does. It does say quite clearly that one side has truth, the other values, and there is no getting around that very basic point as captured in the Sarewitz review.
I’d also note that while Mooney is not shy about posting every mention of his book on his blog, he seems to have somehow avoided engaging the Sarewitz review, which may have something to do with the fact that Sarewitz nails the central inconsistency in the book.
December 21st, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Roger,
How can you say:
*********************************
Well, here is what Mooney writes in the intro to his book: “Companies subject to government regulation regularly invoke “science” to thwart federal controls and protect the bottom line. Religious conservatives, meanwhile, seek to use science to bolster their moralistic agenda…” SNIP
….
Pretty naïve and silly.
*********************************
Would you care to explain the devil’s dance this administration has been performing about Plan B going over the counter without Mooney’s assumption?
And while you are at it, put some effort into explaining the trove of documents turned up by the tobacco litigation which demonstrated that Philip Morris & Co were doing exactly what Mooney claimed at considerable cost to smokers. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/. Curious that many of the same players (Fred Seitz for example) transitioned over into the climate change debate and a similar issues. http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/2025498346.html There are lots of other examples
This is a simple demonstration that your argument is baseless.
More important, in my opinion (and also Mooney’s) is that the Republicans depend on an alliance whose members ARE, for financial and religious reasons, abusing science.
Democrats abuse science, en passant. Sometimes they don’t abuse it at all. For Republicans it has become a matter of existence. Unfortunate.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:33 pm
After Dover
Chortling over, PZ Myers posts on strategy for the anti-ID movement:
I’ve heard [ID proponent Phillip] Johnson speak, and he’s smooth and confident, and slyly appeals to his audience’s prejudices. Of course, he also lies like a (censored) [sic]. It sim…
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Regarding the “global warming” aspect of Mooney/Sarewitz, In addition to the existence of an anti-science war-room I see two other possible forces behind the administration’s position.
The first may be a legitimate belief that their analysis of climate change is correct. They may favor the school, (several of whom regularly visit this site), that says that AGW is indeed happening but that CO2 is not the only cause and that other natural and man-made ones must be considered. The simplistic idea of “pass a law” behind Kyota to them is not the solution. Their answer is to continue to spend billions on climate research (would science warring folks do that?), to enact incentives for conservation and alternate fuels, and to effect political iniatives like the recent Pacific protocol which shares anti-warming technology amongst the biggest energy consumers.
The second is the religious one again. Indeed we can thank Mr. Bush for bringing fundamentalism to the highest levels of government. The declared enemy of their ayatollahs is secular humanism (note the 65 million best-selling “Left Behind” series of books). That secular philosophy of life sits on the political left which happens to be where the warming “crisis” school also resides. You bet that the fundamentalists in power are not going to let secular views prevail. Do be aware, however, that even though these fanatics probably control the Republican party, other factions in that party are at last beginning to to wake up and assert themselves.
But that religious fervor is not exclusive to the right. There is a quasi-religious movement on the left as well. They subscribe to nutty environmental groups instead of religious sects; instead of mullahs and churches, they have websites and the streets of Montreal. Their beliefs are fervent and well-meaning but as scary as the other side’s. If you think this is a mischaracterization, then may I suggest reading, “Scientists Debate Gaia: The Next Century”. The editor presents thirty authors who talk about the New Age god, Gaia, whom they try to transfigure into science. The editor is one Stephan H. Schneider, which name should be familiar to global warming folks. Could “global warming” be the doomsday doctrine for the religious left?
Sorry to take up so much of your website, Roger, but indeed proper framing is important. I frame it this way. There is no Bush war on science. There is, however, a religious war going on and science particularly climate science is caught in the middle!!!
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Dear Roger,
the link to Dan’s review seems not to work. Either that or I have suddenly gone computer-illiterate.
Best regards,
Philipp
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Thanks Philipp, not sure what happened, but here is a link that works;
http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/papers/scientizing%20politics2.pdf
December 28th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
I think many of the comments are talking past each other. People like Dave Roberts and Eli Rabbet are basically saying the Republicans are abusing science. This is the interesting statement.
Roger Pielke is saying Mooney is so biased and illogical that his arguments don’t hold up. This is not very interesting (although I can thank him for saving me the time and money I haven’t spent on Mooney’s book.)
In one of the previous posts I believe Roger said that he had no idea if the current administration is worse then previous. I find this somewhat of a cop-out.
This particular administration appears to be much worse then previous ones. It seems much more ideologically driven, and much more willing to lie and to ignore logic and facts. I’d welcome someone providing good evidence that this is not true. I wish Roger would spend more time on this question rather then attacking Mooney for giving a bad answer to it. For example in Roger Pielke’s response to Dave Roberts’ post, he corrects the reading reading of Mooney, but ignores the larger points.
Also: I don’t like calling this a Republican war on scientific. It seems particular to a small group of people currently in power. It is also not just about science it is about anything that gets in the way of their agenda or power.