Slashdot Mirror
House Panel Holds Hearing On "Politically Driven Science" - Without Scientists
sciencehabit writes: Representative Louie Gohmert (R–TX) is worried that scientists employed by the U.S. government have been running roughshod over the rights of Americans in pursuit of their personal political goals. So this week Gohmert, the chair of the oversight and investigations subpanel of the U.S. House of Representatives' Natural Resources Committee, held a hearing to explore "the consequences of politically driven science." Notably absent, however, were any scientists, including those alleged to have gone astray.
Growing up in the 80s, all I heard was how liberal the media was and how we had to fight against it. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that the phrase "liberal media" was a conservative talking point that they repeated ad infinitum until people stopped questioning it and just assumed it was true.
The same thing is happening now with claiming scientists are politically or monetarily motivated (the conservative machine hasn't settled on which script to stick with).
Look, I'm a scientist. I know scientists. I know scientists at NOAA, NCAR, NIST, the Labs, in academia, in industry, at biotechs, at agri-science companies, at space exploration companies, and at oil and gas companies. I know conservative scientists, liberal scientists, agnostic scientists, religious scientists, and hedonistic scientists.
You know what motivates scientists? Science. And to a lesser extent, their ego. If someone doesn't love science, there's no way they can cut it as a scientist. There are no political or monetary rewards available to scientists in the same way they're available to lawyers and lobbyists.
Science if hard work for little pay and possibly some recognition. Unfortunately, the conservative noise machine is slowly building a narrative that scientists are all politically and monetarily motivated. The public doesn't really know any better and will believe this to be true if they hear it enough.
This attempt to paint scientists as political actors is pure bullshit and demeans the hard work and great sacrifices working scientists make every day.
-Chris
.. Is an old, old, old page out of the tyranny handbook.
Because we can't pander to stupid people who have internalized Republican nonsense. Should we back down every time someone has a stupid belief just because Republicans cherish stupid beliefs?
I think his point is that the Republicans in power seems to be reflexively against anything "those liberals" are in favor of. Liberals say climate change is real and we've got to combat it? Well, obviously, it is false and we need to investigate anyone who says it is true. You've got to wonder if Obama released a statement that read "I like puppies. They're cute.", how quickly would Republicans line up to declare that puppies are evil spawns of Satan and real Americans own cats, not dogs.
The problem with stating that liberals should stop pushing fighting against climate change - targeting clean air/water instead - in the hopes that the Republicans would drop their objections and things would get done is that the Republicans in power have a lot invested in "things are good as-is." Plus, once liberals start decrying polluted air/water, the Republican leadership would reflexively declare all water/air to be 100% clean and would cut EPA funding to match their declaration.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Liberals wanted hard limits on CO2 emissions, no exceptions. Credits were a conservative-proposed, market-based alternative. Liberals weren't that fond of the idea--allowing swaps makes it more difficult to pinpoint violations and takes longer to hit the desired total CO2 decreases--but it had bipartisan support so could actually be enacted, and would make a measurable improvement. So we agreed that it was an acceptable compromise. At which point conservative politicians and their owners and media outlets howled that CO2 credits were the worst socialist plot since Red October, and the goalpost shifted again.
There's no nice way to put this: You are totally fucking stupid.
You have no idea how much dedicated scientists get paid (damn little, especially when you consider the education required to become one). Or how much actual work is involved (a huge amount, one that only someone truly dedicated to their field could ever possibly tolerate).
I know this because I came extremely close to heading back to grad school for a Ph.D., and I would have taken an 85% pay cut for the privilege (for a minimum of four years). And those I know who did take the plunge, got the three letters, endured the low-paying post-doc fellowship, and managed to latch onto an associate professorship.. got very tired very quickly. Tired of hustling for whatever precious grant money they could, and not doing the work they were trained to do, and left academia altogether.
So, Sparky, I would strongly recommend turning off Fox News, leaving your trailer, and enjoying some fresh air.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
I believe the house once held a committee on Women's Health issues, particularly abortion. Notably absent were any women.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I wish liberals would abandon the "climate change" mantra and focus on air and water quality.
Depending on the media you consume you may not know this. About 50% of conservatives willing accept AGW if presented with free-market solutions. About 90% of liberals don't care if the solution is free-market or government -- they just want a solution.
You may find this short video interesting.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right