President Obama at the League of Conservation Voters when he lambasted members of Congress who espouse either an active distrust of our scientific community or passive ignorance of its findings. The distrust of scientists in the United States has become a growing ideology used for political purposes but is actually dangerous to our democracy. Source: White House President Obama at the League of Conservation Voters when he lambasted members of Congress who espouse either an active distrust of our scientific community or passive ignorance of its findings. The distrust of scientists in the United States has become a growing ideology used for political purposes but is actually dangerous to our democracy. Source: White HouseAnd it's not supposed to be. When that happens we start burning books, burning witches and making some very bad decisions. We're not there yet, but we are seeing a very worrisome trend.
President Obama touched on this very subject while speaking to the League of Conservation Voters' Capital Dinner at the end of June, implying that science is being politicized ( LCV Dinner). While on the surface this isn't news, the extent to which our country is rejecting science over ideology is news - bad news. Bad for business, bad for security and bad for the future.
During his speech, Obama lambasted members of Congress who espouse either an active distrust of our scientific community or passive ignorance of its findings. The distrust of scientists in the U.S. has become an effective political tool since the 1980s. But it is also extremely dangerous to our democracy.
No one expects the public to be experts or to recognize important scientific results. But we do expect that when important scientific results occur, they are implemented and used for the betterment of America and the world.
Everyone remembers how the tobacco industry pretended scientific studies showed cigarettes didn't cause cancer. But when results finally came out from independent scientific studies showing they do cause cancer, the country, and even smokers, accepted it pretty quickly. As Obama put it:
'I'm not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctors tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I'll say, OK.'
The most glaring examples of this distrust of scientific experts are in climate change, evolution and nuclear energy. Being a geologist, I know quite a bit about climate change, having studied its effects over the last two billion years on Earth, and even on other planets like Mars and Venus, where we began our models of extreme climate change in the 60s and 70s. But even I have to defer to those researchers who are knee deep in its influence over the last 10,000 years and the role of human activities, such as deforestation, agriculture and volatilization of fossil carbon, in aggravating the effects over recent time.
But if you disagree with the scientists in these fields, it is easy to believe it's a conspiracy by various moneyed interests who have bought that entire scientific field and everyone in it. So you can just ignore all of them.
The notion that science should not depend on public opinion is an American tradition, a major reason we became the most powerful nation on Earth. The Founding Fathers were students of the Enlightenment and viewed science and technology as fundamental to the emerging Nation's survival:
'There is nothing which can better deserve your patronage, than the promotion of science and literature.' - George Washington, 1st State of The Union Address, 1790
'Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry' - Thomas Jefferson, 1779
We all understand that public attitudes on science are more influenced by political and religious beliefs than by the public's scientific literacy ( IFL Science). That a quarter of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth isn't as bad as it sounds. Half of Americans believed that 100 years ago. Close to 100% thought that in 1776.
But they didn't really influence scientific policy. Now they do.
Before 1980, Congress and the President generally deferred to the scientific community to interpret science. Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't argue the merits of the Bohr atom with Oppenheimer when he wrote to him 1943. Yes, the Moon landing was driven by military and Cold War aims, but no one in politics questioned how NASA went about getting us there.
Science isn't a belief system. It's proven knowledge. It either knows the answer to a problem, or admits it doesn't and keeps looking for it. Every time we ignore the scientific community, bad things generally happen.
Entities 0 Name: Obama Count: 5 1 Name: Congress Count: 4 2 Name: American Count: 3 3 Name: Earth Count: 3 4 Name: League of Conservation Voters Count: 2 5 Name: United States Count: 2 6 Name: White House Count: 1 7 Name: Bohr Count: 1 8 Name: U.S. Count: 1 9 Name: League of Conservation Voters ' Capital Dinner Count: 1 10 Name: Thomas Jefferson Count: 1 11 Name: Moon Count: 1 12 Name: NASA Count: 1 13 Name: st State of The Union Address Count: 1 14 Name: IFL Science Count: 1 15 Name: George Washington Count: 1 16 Name: Oppenheimer Count: 1 17 Name: America Count: 1 18 Name: Franklin Delano Roosevelt Count: 1 19 Name: Venus Count: 1 20 Name: LCV Dinner Count: 1 Related 0 Url: http://ift.tt/1nXcEOw Title: Scientists on Twitter. | BrainFacts.org Blog Description: Neil Hall from the University of Liverpool has published a very interesting mini-study on scientists and Twitter. He developed a metric that compares the popularity of scientists on Twitter to the impact of their publications within peer-reviewed journals.
Post a Comment for "Science Is Not Democratic"