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: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.