Group Fights Politicizing Science and Engineering

smooth wombat writes, "Several prominent scientists said yesterday that they had formed an organization dedicated to electing politicians 'who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.' The group will be a 527 organization and will focus its efforts on races in which science plays a part." From the article: "In what it described as a Bill of Rights for scientists and engineers, the group said that researchers who receive federal funds should be free to discuss their work publicly, and that appointments to federal scientific advisory committees should be based on scientific qualifications, not political beliefs. It said the government should not support science education programs that 'include concepts that are derived from ideology,' an apparent reference to creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design."

Comments

Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter

[Mateo_LeFou]

"Just admit it, Democrats are less founded in conservative Christian belief and therefore are more prone to rely on science for decisions/explanations" I'm no republican, but I can't accept this. It's probably true that Christianity is not going to be the non-scientific thing that Democrats base their decisions on, but that doesn't mean they're any more scientific than the pubs. Consider -I see dems using class & race resentment to rile people up as often as the pubs use 'faith & morals' -Conservative fiscal policy -- generally speaking -- has some economic basis, while social-program expansion is generally based on sob stories. I don't think the idea that one party is more scientific in their approach is *at *all tenable.

Re:Not really...

[__aaclcg7560]

The sad reality is that moderates are now the new silent majority.

Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter

[Red Flayer]

The sad fact of the current political state of the United States is simply that politicians are relying on voters to vote based on emotion, not logic.

I think you're close, but not quite there. The political machines in the US are convincing voters to vote based on wedge issues -- often issues that will not be resolved whomever is elected (as you point out with abortion), or with issues of minor significance.

Just admit it, Democrats are less founded in conservative Christian belief and therefore are more prone to rely on science for decisions/explanations.

You're confusing the issues here, and generalizing far too much. Republicans are not founded in conservative Christian belief -- it just so happened that the fundamentalist Christian bloc has been able to dominate the politics of the Republican Party. Also, conservative Christian != fundamentalist Christian (which is why I used the different term). Fundies want to change the law to reflect their beliefs -- by definition, conservatives are more interested in preserving the status quo. There is some overlap, of course.

The politicians are supposed to represent the people and, since most people aren't experts using science and engineering, they shouldn't make decisions based on this.

The US is not a direct democracy -- it was not intended to be one, and our elective system represents that. We, the people, are responsible for electing those we trust to lead us, to make good decisions on our behalf, and to represent our interests -- which is not the same as reflecting our will on specific issues. Never will 100% of the population be educated enough on any single issue that the government should do exactly as a majority of the people want. I vote for the person who I think will make the best-reasoned, best-educated decisions based on shared values. Of course, I have limited choice, but that's a rant for a different thread.

At any rate, I find this new 527 to be right up my alley, and I'll have to take a look at them when I decide what PACs my money is going to next year.

Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter

[DerekLyons]

Just admit it, Democrats are less founded in conservative Christian belief and therefore are more prone to rely on science for decisions/explanations.

Hardly. Many on the Democratic side of the aisle are firmly founded in liberal and/or greenie belief - two beliefs hardly more conducive to science than Christian beliefs. (That is, if you want to base your ideas mostly on biases and stereotypes.)

Check the Title

[greysky]

"Group Fights Politicizing Science and Engineering"

Isn't what they are doing exactly what the title says they are fighting against? Don't get me wrong, I'm for what they are doing, but shouldn't the title read more like "Group Fights Ignorance/Misuse of Science and Engineering in Politics"?

The Science of Politics

[The Living Fractal]

I am curious; what methods do these scientists intend to use to achieve their agenda? Obviously a central tenet of their philosophy is that science should not be restricted by politically charged interest groups. They argue that science should be free from the effects of political posturing -- essentially popular cultural beliefs are ineffective at choosing the proper course for scientific research, largely because of religious intrusion (but not solely). They seem to be saying that religious thoughts, i.e. thoughts unsupported by empiricism and experiment, are responsible for hampering human progress and development.

Of course, they understand the irony in their attempt to fight the politicizing of science using political methods. They see that one must fight fire with fire. Except that in their case they argue their fire has a fuel stronger than the fuel of religion; a fuel of proof. Of couse, they don't really know the outcome of their research. It could be that research into stem cells leads to a discovery which leads to an invention of some form which unltimately is responsible for the destruction of humanity. Far-fetched? Of course, but nevertheless possible. I am sure they would be willing to admit that they truly have no way to predict the outcome of certain lines of scientific research. They would probably tell us that the utmost care will be taken in such research to prevent misuse of the knowledge gained.

This situation is what brings us to where we are today. Caught between a balance of the known and the unknown. Between trying to figure out what is right, what should be researched and what shouldn't. Using religious principles to guide scientific research is of course wrong. But is it not also wrong to study simply for the sake of study, without at least first having a collective agreement regarding the safety of said study? Witness the idea that a powerful enough particle accelerator could create a tiny black hole which falls into the center of the planet and slowly consumes it, eventually destroying us all. Of course this has yet to actually happen, but the point is that we went ahead and smashed those particles together anyway. And we're still here, for now, but what about the LHC? Or, if it were built, the SSC?

When humanity set off the first nuclear bomb there was talk that it might literally set the world on fire. It seems the truth is nobody was 100% certain it wouldn't.

I some senses science is blind. Experiments are done because we don't know what they're going to produce. If we knew the outcome, we'd need never experiment. So, while I support the idea that science should not be hindered by certain forms of human thought, I also hope that this group doesn't stray to the other extreme. That of electing somebody who throws caution to the wind and a blind eye to scientific progress. The more advanced we get, the more cautious we should be.

Re:The Science of Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Experiments have not been done blind ever since science is science. There's always at least one expected outcome. If that's what you get, it increases your confidence in the theory. If it is not, you know you need a better one. Sometimes you're lucky: you got 2 (or more) hypotheses, theories even, that predict different outcomes, so you know before starting that you will bin one (for instance, Eddington's 1919 sun experiment that had Newton's and Einstein's gravity theories making different predictions).

Scientists, by definition, are never 100% certain. They know that some things are wrong, that some others have survived the experiments so far (the longest, the more confidence you have that it's going to be right the next time :-), and yet others that are not testable, hence not part of science.

What those guys are defending is the principle that the latter should not hinder the process. Why is that important? Because while scientists have an idea of where science is at today, they don't know whers it's gonna be in 10 years, much less 50. And they certainly don't know HOW to get there. So it's important not to close the doors arbitrarily on avenues that could deny our children or grandchildren, or postpone for 4 generations, the benefits of research we could be starting today.

That is not to a license to be reckless. The LHC black hole thing was largely journalistic sensationalism: scientists already knew that the energy of the particles is inferior by orders of magnitudes to particles coming from space (look up the o-my-god particle) - and we're still here. Furthermore calculations show that such a black hole would evaporate way too fast to absorb as much as an electron. Are they 100% certain? No. But scientifically, that's much more certain than you are of your own name. And likewise with the nuke.

There's one born every minute...

[Scrameustache]

...and 18 years later he gets a vote.

Rove understood this and whatever you say about the man, if he fools you once and fools you twice and keeps on fooling you, it's not his fault.

I blame God. God made people dumb AND he forbid them from eating the fruit of knowledge. It's not the devil's fault, he's just as god made him.

Theological notions aside, once you know about the depressing truths of human nature, it would be in everyone's best interest to shape their government in such a way that reason weighs more than emotions in the policy-making process.
Like, with laws.

It sure beats the back and forth.

Re:Wolves

[koreth]

Most Republicans are living in the real world, where there is a shooting war on.

Which they're doing their level best to lose in the most spectacular way possible.

Most Democrats are living in a fantasy world where they are more likely to believe Bushitler blew up the WTC than to believe UBL not only did it, but that it wasn't his first successful attack.

Ah! That explains why so many Democrats were in favor of going into Afghanistan. (Check the congressional vote record if you don't believe me.)

I could just as easily say most Republicans are living in a fantasy world where history isn't what actually happened, it's what should have happened such that the present authorities are cast in the most flattering possible light, all problems are automatically the other side's fault, all mistakes the result of meddling by the opposition.

Iraq isn't about weapons of mass destruction! Where did you get a silly idea like that? It's about spreading democracy, just like we told you from the beginning. The insurgency is in its last throes -- mission accomplished!

9/11 was all Clinton's fault, because, um, well, Lewinsky, PRESIDENT HAVING SEX, bad! Except that it was actually Saddam Hussein's fault, because he had strong ties to Al-Qaida, well, okay, not strong ties exactly, but he talked to them, well okay, he didn't talk to them exactly, but he knew about them, well okay, he kind of hated their guts more than we did, but dammit, he was breeding terrorists. We can't have Saddam breeding terrorists over there, not when we can take over and, according to our own intelligence analysts, do a much better job of breeding even more terrorists.

And if you have a problem with that, we might have a guy listening in to your phone conversations. You know, to help safeguard your freedom and privacy from those terrorists who hate freedom. (Or we might not, no way you can find out, because we won't even allow you to sue over it.)

What I want to know is, where are all the ultra right-wingers who were threatening bloody revolution in the event of all the anti-civil-liberty crap that's happening before our eyes? Was there a footnote in that threat I missed, "Offer only valid if a Democrat is in office?"

Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter

[jotok]

Sorry, you have to choose whether it's ok to legislate morality. I'd prefer to avoid it myself, but unfortunately I guess that's just another set of morals, right?

I think that technically the Congress can do little else besides legislate morality. Every law that they put into effect is theoretically a approximation of some kind of objective and universal moral law. If not, then there's nothing to complain about except when "your side" doesn't get to make the laws. If so, then we can debate the laws and whether or not they should exist.

This is what the Framers did, and then came up with a pretty good document, the goal of which was to limit the government for the purpose of providing the most possible freedom to the people, and in many cases it's clear that some new laws violate this document and therefore are probably immoral. However much the Left wants to debate this, though, I think that it is the reliance on relativism ("Living Document" liberals) that has hamstrung their efforts as they tries to fight the changes being put into practice by the current administration.

Just my $0.02.

Re:What about other offensive material?

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to enlighten you on the nature of science:

Fundamentally, all you know is "I am aware of my existence therefore I exist." This is true by definition. Of course, even though everything that is aware of its existence exists (by definition), not everything that exists is necessarily aware of its existence (for example, a rock).

The thing is, even though you experience things, you don't know that these things are "real". For all you know, you could be trapped in a sophisticated virtual reality. In fact, you don't even know that you have human form. You could just be an artificial intelligence computer program. In fact, even though you have the perception of free will, your "behavior" may be determined by things you have no control over.

What you do know, however, is that there are patterns to what you remember experiencing. Furthermore, you observe other people (who may or may not be "real") who claim to remember observing the same patterns as you.

Science, fundamentally, is nothing more than organizing and summarizing these patterns of observation. To put it in slightly more common language, science is nothing more than organizing and summarizing the collection of all mutually agreed upon factual observations.

It's also easy to find scientific data which will prove just about anything.

No. When all mutually agreed upon factual observations are considered, there are very definite and specific patterns that emerge. Certainly, if one looks at patterns in things that are not mutually agreed upon factual observations or if one ignores other mutually agreed upon factual observations then there is a broad range of patterns that are possible. Otherwise, the patterns are very definite and specific.

My point is that everybody has some beliefs that they feel should go unchallenged.

That depends what you mean by "unchallenged". I am not personally motivated to devote my life to finding factual observations that are inconsistent with my beliefs. If it turns out though, that somewhere in the world someone is trying to observe some fact that is inconsistent with a belief that I hold, I'm not likely to loose sleep over it.

As far as specifics:

What if a teacher wants to start up a discussion about whether homosexuality is a mental disorder?

Does it matter? In the end, if you have correctly recognized the patterns of factual observation that we call "life" then you may be able to make predictions about future outcomes of various actions. For example, you might accurately predict whether legalizing gay marriage would cause society as we know it to collapse. Then you would act on the basis of your prediction - whatever it was.

What if a scientist wants federal money to evaluate racial differences dealing with violent behavior and intelligence?

You will almost certainly find some correlations but what you really care about is causation: does darker skin pigmentation (or whatever your definition of race is) by itself cause people to be more likely to engage in certain behaviors or less able to perform certain mental tasks? Given current research ethics laws, it is almost certain that any scientific experiments that could answer this question unambiguously would be illegal.

What if a doctor reports statistical information stating that children of interracial relationships have a higher birth defect rate?

That would actually be really useful to know. If the birth defects were accurately characterized then it could be very valuable in helping interracial couples terminate pregnancies involving birth defects. Incidentally, it is well known that when people who are both members of certain ethnic/religious communities have children there is a higher incidence of birth defects. It really doesn't seem to be a big deal.

What if someone produces a study that indicates faith