BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Science and Politics

 
 
grant
15:47 / 02.10.06
News of a new political organization, Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA) has my attention. (That's an NY Times link, but SEA's website is here, at sefora.org, and they've got a blog and wonderfully addressed http://www.sefora.org/serendipity/.)

From their webpage:

Scientists and engineers have a right, indeed an obligation, to enter the political debate when the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interests ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research.


They're looking for support for their "Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers," located here.

They're motivated by
* stem cells
* climate change
* OTC contraception limits
* intelligent design/creationism

and a few other things:

And it said the government should not publish false or misleading scientific information, something Dr. Wood said occurred when the National Cancer Institute briefly posted an item on its Web site suggesting that abortion was linked to breast cancer.

So, if you're nervous about a New Dark Ages, then, you know, somebody's organizing. They're trying to fight back. This is a 527 organization. It's a lobbying group.

It's early days yet -- what do you think they should do?

And has anyone seen other signs of a broader scientific backlash? Who else is doing something?
 
 
grant
14:44 / 03.10.06
More along the lines of "why we fight" -- the federal judge who presided over the Dover School Board case (about intelligent design in science textbooks) spent a week under the protection of federal marshals after receiving death threats.

So. Science matters. Standing up for it can get you (potentially) killed.

Weird, huh?
 
 
Quantum
17:27 / 03.10.06
Go them I say, I think in the US it desperately needs to be done. Less so in Europe I think.
 
 
Quantum
17:55 / 03.10.06
Oh, and Cornell university seems to be a part of the backlash- Theocracywatch.org, check it out;

'D. James Kennedy, Pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, calls on his followers to exercise "godly dominion ... over every aspect ... of human society." At a "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference in February, 2005, Kennedy said:
Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.'

our scientific endeavors...whatever the cost. Chilling.
 
 
Mirror
20:43 / 03.10.06
It appears that I may soon be interviewed by the local news media about SEFORA - I signed up as a member as soon as I heard about it, and I just today got an email from them saying that the media in Colorado contacted SEFORA asking for contact information for a few members who would be willing to be interviewed about their involvement.

So, if all goes well, I may have the opportunity to give a public statement about the interaction of science and policy. I'm thinking that I'll probably talk mainly about how politicians need to understand, be informed by, and apply the scientific method, and complain about the fact that there is no cabinet-level department of the government devoted to scientific research. Does anyone have any suggestions of other things that I should really mention?
 
 
grant
02:24 / 04.10.06

What kind of media? If it's broadcast, you'll need short, snappy answers -- complicated ideas won't cut it. Papers can deal with longer answers, but still require a pithy quote or two to stick high up in the story.

Value of research, problems with anti-science, America built on foundation of scientific method from Benjamin Franklin to the moon landing, now that's in jeopardy -- something as short as that, only, you know, phrased better.

There is no cabinet-level department of the government devoted to scientific research -- this is a good start, I think. Especially if coupled with a touch of the other-fear -- mention something about the stem-cell-related brain drain to Singapore, maybe. "They used to come here, now our best are going THERE." or the like. Or maybe that's laying it on thick. Tabloids spoil me.

If you want answers coaching or brainstorming, email me.
 
 
Mirror
02:49 / 04.10.06
I don't know what type of media yet - I've only been contacted by SEFORA itself - so I'd best prepare for both broadcast and print. I suspect that print is more likely, but who knows?

I definitely can use suggestions for broadcast because I'm having a hard time distilling my frustration with the current state of affairs down into an eloquent, persuasive, and memorable soundbyte. I'd like to fit something about the scientific method being the best tool we have for accurately predicting the ramifications of policy - but am having a hard time making it compelling. Saying that the nation was founded on science seems pretty drab to me - people say that the nation was founded on all sorts of things.

If I can fit in a stab at pseudoscience and politically motivated selective truth campaigns, that would be good too - something about the co-opting of the language of science to lend legitimacy to ideological statements.
 
 
grant
14:02 / 04.10.06
Here's a figure you might be able to use, from this op-ed column:

Last year, a report from the National Academies' Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century showed us a glimpse of the future. Of all the patent applications reaching the U.S. Patent Office, the report noted, the most by far still come from the United States. However, from 1989 to 2001, the rate of increase of patent applications from the world's fastest-growing economies, such as China and India, was nearly three times that of the United States. By that measure, innovation in those economies will blow past ours in little more than a decade — just about the time the current classes of high school biology students will be starting their research careers.

Fear Of China, much as I hate to say it, is an easy frame for soundbites.

I also think using Ben Franklin as an iconic figure would help, with the inventions and the electric kites and all. By "use as an iconic figure," I mean merely use his name in a comment, particularly if you can contrast his time and our time. People know Ben Franklin.

But OK, let's look at the first thing you said: I'd like to fit something about the scientific method being the best tool we have for accurately predicting the ramifications of policy - but am having a hard time making it compelling.

This *seems* a little too out-there for soundbite-land in its current form. I think what you might try doing is establishing something like "scientific method = common sense" and then "common sense = good research, but also good policy." Personally, I'd even want to have my subject say something about lifestyle & society, since more people will respond to better standard-of-living than to something as abstract as "policy."

Concrete examples are compelling. Abstractions aren't.

"The scientific method is just common sense -- it's coming with an idea about how something works and then testing it.
"What I'd like to see is more common sense in government and in our daily lives. Common sense is what made our country the leader of the free world.
"Ben Franklin understood that when he discovered electricity -- but I don't think Ben Franklin would even recognize what's happening in America today."

Something like that. It can be stated better.

Oh, and that's another thing. I have no idea how local your local media are, but if they're at all worth their salt as reporters, their job is to try to get you to say something that fits the story they already have outlined in their heads. The way politicians get around this is by refusing to answer yes or no statements except by repeating their talking points. That's why they sound so blowhardy so much of the time -- self-preservation. It's a strategy to keep in mind, although you do run the risk of appearing to be a moron unless you're talented at paraphrasing yourself.

Does SEFORA have a press kit?
 
 
grant
14:56 / 05.10.06
Oh, and I realize the stem-cell brain drain isn't something you mentioned, but Albert Einstein is a good, recognizable icon for brain drain discussions. Came to America because research was valued here. Now, our Einsteins are leaving.
 
 
Red Concrete
22:10 / 06.10.06
Kim Stanley Robinson's latest books - Forty Signs of Rain, and Fifty Degrees Below have thought-inspiring material on science and politics, albeit in a situation of accelerating climatic change. I'm still reading the latter.

My thoughts are that science should inform politics, but getting directly involved is dangerous territory. If, for example, science becomes identified as a slightly left-leaning lobby group, as it seems to be in the US at the moment, what implications does that have. Are rightist governments going to cut science budgets? Are individuals with more right-leaning politics going to avoid scientific education, or careers, because of how science is perceived?

The thread on science and ideology just bumped by xk is probably a good place to discuss some of this too. Is science informing and directing ideology a good thing, but ideology should not inform or direct science? Is that unrealistic?
 
 
Queer Pirate
02:26 / 10.10.06
Joining the soundbite bandwagon here, what about talking about science and knowledge for the better future of our children? Children always make the point come across good in the media (whether the point is valid or not).

BTW, science can be a bit of a scary and negative word for some people. If you sometimes substitute it with "knowledge" or "a better understanding of the world we live in", you might achieve a better emotional response in a sentence. You're also implying that YOU are standing for knowledge, whereas other stand for something else altogether less commendable.

Knowledge and freedom, knowledge and liberty? Knowledgeable people are free(er) people.

* * *

I think it might also be worth questioning ourselves as to why people have become skeptical about science. The theocrats are feeding on something that was already there; I doubt that they have created anti-science from scratch.

Let's face it: some scientists haven't always fought the good fight and it's left some deep stigmas.

What about promoting positive, friendly scientific figures? As a francophone, I'm thinking Hubert Reeves and Albert Jacquard, but I'm sure there are other charismatic scientific figures that could reach a broad appeal in the U.S. and create a new, positive image of the scientist.

Put Einstein posters everywhere?
 
 
sn00p
13:40 / 15.10.06
I think science and politics would get along much better if we just scraped the word science. There's no knowledge which isn't scientific, and no such thing as a scientist because everyone uses science all the time.

We should just have facts, lies and unknowns.

Obviously philosophy comes in to play when we talk about stem cells or clonning, because what is considered life can be quite a subjetive thing.

I hate politics, world problems are increadibly simple. It's only complicated if you're twisting things to your own ends.
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:17 / 16.10.06
I think science and politics would get along much better if we just scraped the word science. There's no knowledge which isn't scientific, and no such thing as a scientist because everyone uses science all the time.

That seems a little simplistic to me. There quite obviously is a distinct body of occupations which can be thought of as scientists. I'd disagree that everyone uses science all of the time (unless you're arguing it in the sense that some posters in Temple argue that we all do magic all of the time).

There is plenty of knowledge that isn't scientifically derived.
 
 
sn00p
18:55 / 16.10.06
I think a carpenter is a scientist of wood as much as a anatomist is a scientist of the body. Everybody’s trying to discover new ways of doing things, or new understandings of how things work, or putting that pre existing knowledge into practice.

If knowledge isn't attained by verifiable means it's not really knowledge, so I don’t think you can have knowledge which is non-scientific.
 
 
Queer Pirate
21:31 / 16.10.06
There is actually a very specific method to science, which involves systematic doubt, along with rigorous and repeated experimentation. Science also deals exclusively with observable and quantifiable phenomenon.

Everybody experiments, but a high degree of rigor is required to refer to experiments as being scientific. Also, experiments dealing with phenomenon that can't be quantified, along with experiments that cannot be reproduced with the exact same variables because of their very nature (i.e. the impact of ritual magic on the massive event matrix that we call reality), fall outside of the scientific model (which does not mean that the phenomenon does not exist, nonetheless).

Does this sum it up pretty well?
 
 
sn00p
09:42 / 17.10.06
No, because science may deal with observable and quantifiable data exclusively, but that's because all data is observable and quantifiable. If there's no observable aspect of an event then there's nothing to suggest it’s even happening, so we would have no knowledge of it. This does not mean that it's not happening; it's just that we have no knowledge of it, so anything we think about it would be purely speculation, based on assumption, not observations.

Ritual magic is verifiable. You can do a ritual and get an effect. The variables involved may be different, but if what you're trying to prove is whether your actions have an effect, this is verifiable, i.e do a ritual, record the results. While the basic structure of all magic ritual is objective, the actual mechanics is subjective, so you would only ever be able to prove magic to yourself using rigours experimentation in the form of a ‘subjective science’.

A high degree of rigor is required for an experiment to be considered scientific, but that's just the amount of rigour required to prove something to be true.
 
 
Quantum
14:28 / 17.10.06
sn00p, people often jump to conclusions or use intuition or prejudice instead of empirical induction. That's not science. We can talk about a priori or analytic truths that don't involve recourse to observation (e.g. all bachelors are unmarried, 2+2=4, the past precedes the present etc) which aren't scientific, and we can distinguish high energy physics from children throwing stones in a pond. Some things are science and some aren't, and while the line can be blurry there's definitely a need to distinguish science from, say, religion.
 
 
sn00p
16:20 / 17.10.06
My two statements kind of conflicted:
#Everything is science
#We should just have truth lies and unknowns

Because if everything is science, then so are lies and unkowns. I think what i mean is "All quests for truth are science, and all truth is science"

But that priori thing has me stumped, i'll have to meditate on that. Intresting....
 
 
grant
17:12 / 22.12.06
There's a new battle a-brewing between the US Geological Survey and the Bush Administration.

Because the gummint is checking all their researchers' work:

New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists who study everything from caribou mating to global warming. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

At least 10,000 researchers have signed a protest statement saying this regulation is squashing the practice of science.

The new requirements state that the USGS's communications office must be "alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature."

...

Patrick Leahy, USGS's head of geology and its acting director until September, said Wednesday that the new procedures would improve scientists' accountability and "harmonize" the review process. He said they are intended to maintain scientists' neutrality.


So, either it's just that the government wants to know what the scientists are discovering first so it can adapt policy to match the new picture of reality, or else the government wants to know what scientists are discovering first so it can keep the facts to itself if they're embarrassing enough.

Which is more likely?
 
 
grant
14:35 / 09.03.07
Scientists told: "Don't mention polar bears."

I swear I'm not making that up.

Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.

The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.

Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."
 
 
Quantum
17:32 / 09.03.07
Crikey. That'll be fear of culpability;

Scientists now believe that the projected decreases in the polar sea ice due to global warming will have a significant negative impact or even lead to extinction of this species within this century

...and a reaction to pressure groups;

In February 2005 the environmental group, Center for Biological Diversity, with support from American senator Joe Lieberman, petitioned the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), part of the Department of the Interior to use the Endangered Species Act and list the bears as a threatened species.

Under United States law the FWS was required to respond to the petition within 90 days, but in October 2005 after no reply had be received the Center for Biological Diversity threatened to sue the United States Government. On 14 December 2006 the Center for Biological Diversity along with Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit in California.

On December 27, 2006, the United States Department of the Interior in agreement with the three groups proposed that polar bears be added to the endangered species list, the first change of this type to be attributed to global warming. It will take up to a year to make the final determination.


(wikipedia)

Think how bad it's going to look making polar bears extinct, the first species sacrificed to global warming caused by many factors but mostly the US lifestyle.
 
 
Tom Coates
12:09 / 10.03.07
I think it's pretty clear that people don't view 'science' as being that simple process which we believe in - ie. a hypothesis subject to testing, which is abandoned if the evidence doesn't support it. People think 'science' is a complex and terrifying idea full of horror and weirdness, and they need to be disabused of this.

However, I don't think 'fact', 'lies' and 'unknowns' are useful. The scientific method actually has very little space for facts, certainly where it applies to scientific theories. Extrapolating theories from evidence is always a speculation, it's always an unknown, it's just some unknowns are plausible where others have been abandoned because the evidence doesn't support them.
 
  
Add Your Reply