Science and Politics in the Twenty-First Century

Science and Politics in the Twenty-First Century

It's nothing new for science to be politicized.  The Inquisition gave Galileo a choice:  He could either stop seeing what he saw through his rudimentary telescope, or be burned at the stake.  And Dick York, best known as Samantha's first Darren in "Bewitched," lost his job for teaching evolution in "Inherit the Wind."  No wonder he turned to witchcraft in the end, if you ask me.  Nowadays, it's climate change (or "global warming," depending on who's talking about it and when) and evolution (still!) and "when does life begin?" (i.e., the "right to choose" v. the "right to life.")

I think it's a great testament to the indomitable spirit of the American people that so many of us have strong opinions about scientific issues even though we know nothing at all about science, and can't distinguish a scientific "theory" from a crazy religious "myth." And of course, politicians and others can deal with inconvenient scientific research merely by a muttered reference to a "flawed methodology" or "insufficient data" before moving right back to wishful belief again. 

But just like judges, scientists themselves aren't ideally supposed to be politicized.  They're supposed to go looking for the truth, and when they find it, they're supposed to embrace it, even if it turns out that their personal "beliefs" were wrong all along.  Scientists, however, are human beings first, and it's no surprise that they have a hard time seeing "inconvenient truths," even when they're right in front of them.  However, imperfect as they are, most scientists will try to remain true to the pursuit of truth, unless they've sold out entirely and are working for the major tobacco companies or the DEA or something.  Nonetheless, scientists often see what they want to see, just like everybody else.  This is why it's legitimate to demand a scientific "consensus" before altering one's worldview.  The problem kicks in when people are so hidebound in their beliefs that they can't recognize when the consensus has been reached.

So what's a person who went to California public schools supposed to do when some scientific question becomes a political football?  How does one make up one's mind about, for instance, the question of whether the world is overpopulated with human beings who are significantly contributing to the destruction of the environment?  Well, one way of resolving the issue would be to simply join the Republican Party.  According to their selected science (read the party platform, if you don't "believe" me, and think about it; it's available online) we don't need contraception (and certainly not the "right to choose"), we do need guns, and "global warming" is a myth.

Alternatively, you could believe that violence will disappear if you ban "assault-style" firearms (apparently defined as guns that would look cool in an action movie or video game,) despite that only a tiny fraction of gun deaths occur as the result of homicide committed with a rifle of any kind, or that the best way to control crime is issue driver's licenses and benefit checks to illegal aliens.

Or... just throwing it out there... you could do a lot of reading and a little thinking and come to the realization that neither of the big political parties has it right (how could they, since ideological purity is demanded by both, and independent thinking is reflexively punished by the leadership and the voters?). If you did that, you could then try to navigate the system with a "one from column A and one from column B" approach.  But then everyone would hate you.  Plus, it sounds like a lot of work, doesn't it?