NYT: The Democratic Party is the Party of Science
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/us/politics/28science.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin SEE BELOW
..........
According to an article in the New York Times, some "scientists and engineers" who are fed up with the apparent Bush administration stance on things like climate change, stem cell research and contraception have created "bipartisan" organization aimed at electing politicians “who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.”
Despite my personal devotion to EBM and passion about public health policy, I cannot support the idea of scientists picking and supporting political candidates in this way.
I hope you can look beyond any apparent politically-based reasons, but that is precisely my point. I can't support this organization because it IS politically based, regardless of whether it is party-specific or bipartisan.
Thus, this organization might merely be seen as a credible-looking scientist spin tank to lend an air of scientific validity to candidates of the current opposing political party, and to root out and spin up anything that can be argued as cientifically disagreeable about anything, anywhere as examples of scientific incompetence, ignorance, or avoidance on the part of the current elected party. Even if this organization is made up of sincere scientists, how much lower can a scientific community go when it’s made to look like a dog-and-pony show of politicians?
If politicians are trying to hold up evidence-based science as an alternative for creating health policy, then it's like (s)CAM advocates trying to hold up EBM as merely another alternative to their way of medical practice. They both miss the fundamental point: medical science isn't an entity. Medical science isn't the AMA, nor does it represent any group or membership. It's not an opinion any more than it is a system of mathematical algorithms that can produce the right answer every time. So, how can a political party point out that a science battle in politics is
seemingly taking place, then claim to be winning it?
The science surrounding a health policy issue must never be repressed. However, it must be understood that the issue itself is often more important than the science. A scientific argument should not necessarily trump any ethical, moral, economic, or social one. We need plumbers’ advice when designing a city sewer system, but we wouldn't want a room full of plumbers telling us how to do it.
On to another risk of why a politically-based scientific organization can be bad. The tobacco industry has very effectively used “health” scientists for decades. In politics, well, we know how the Nazis used medical scientists. But, to the point. Even if any skepticism about this organization's true intentions are unfounded, there is still too great a risk that the cause will become more important to the
scientist than is the science.
I've heard people decribe how Chiropractic science is devoted to proving Chiropractic. If scientists become too involved in the politics of public policy, will it be any different? How far do scientists go in the support of a cause before the true ideals of evidence-based scientific philosophy begin to be compromised? Cox-2 inhibitors getting on the market might make for an analogy of how real the onsequences of crossing the line can be.
Federal money and politics is a dominant factor in driving the health industry, and the temptation for a scientist to justify a less than pure scientific-based motive for supporting a political candidate to some extent is overwhelming. Even a scientist will hesitate to bite the hand that feeds him.
I think there is sometimes something not right and bordering on unethical when scientific or medical credentials are tossed around in certain political venues. Maybe the same way that many scientists don’t like the idea of a politician running around the world talking science.
"Scientist" might not be a superior title over "plumber" or "mother", but a scientist, as is implied by the NYT article describing this group, has the distinction that s/he represents an understanding of the cold hard facts about a science issue as presented by objective evidence. And a scientist, is therefore an unbiased expert when s/he speaks to that evidence.
In summary, I have 3 issues of antagonism.
1) I don't find it plausable that a credible "scientific" organization would allow itself to become a dog-and-pony show of politicians.
2) I don't see a scientific group as having any altruistic scientific credibility once it has been and siding with individual politicians or political groups. There is too great a risk that fundamental ideals of science regarding objective discovery will be compromised.
3) The biggest reason for antagonism is the appearance of a shallow political tactic of creating a "political party science war". For a political party to infer that it is the party of scientific truth is based on falacies of logic because, as an art, science is not always right or wrong.
Nawledge
--------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/us/politics/28science.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Scientists Form Group to Support Science-Friendly Candidates
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: September 28, 2006
Capitol Hill Watch | Concerned About Several Bush Administration Policies, Nonpartisan Scientist Organization Creates Effort To Elect Lawmakers Who
Support Scientific Research [Sep 28, 2006]
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.”
Organizers of the group, Scientists and Engineers for America, said it would be nonpartisan, but in interviews several said Bush administration science policies had led them to act. The issues they cited included the administration’s position on climate change, its restrictions on stem cell research and delays in authorizing the over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception.
In a statement posted on its Web site (www.sefora.org), the group said scientists and
engineers had an obligation “to enter the political debate when the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interest ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research.” -snip-
..........
According to an article in the New York Times, some "scientists and engineers" who are fed up with the apparent Bush administration stance on things like climate change, stem cell research and contraception have created "bipartisan" organization aimed at electing politicians “who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.”
Despite my personal devotion to EBM and passion about public health policy, I cannot support the idea of scientists picking and supporting political candidates in this way.
I hope you can look beyond any apparent politically-based reasons, but that is precisely my point. I can't support this organization because it IS politically based, regardless of whether it is party-specific or bipartisan.
Thus, this organization might merely be seen as a credible-looking scientist spin tank to lend an air of scientific validity to candidates of the current opposing political party, and to root out and spin up anything that can be argued as cientifically disagreeable about anything, anywhere as examples of scientific incompetence, ignorance, or avoidance on the part of the current elected party. Even if this organization is made up of sincere scientists, how much lower can a scientific community go when it’s made to look like a dog-and-pony show of politicians?
If politicians are trying to hold up evidence-based science as an alternative for creating health policy, then it's like (s)CAM advocates trying to hold up EBM as merely another alternative to their way of medical practice. They both miss the fundamental point: medical science isn't an entity. Medical science isn't the AMA, nor does it represent any group or membership. It's not an opinion any more than it is a system of mathematical algorithms that can produce the right answer every time. So, how can a political party point out that a science battle in politics is
seemingly taking place, then claim to be winning it?
The science surrounding a health policy issue must never be repressed. However, it must be understood that the issue itself is often more important than the science. A scientific argument should not necessarily trump any ethical, moral, economic, or social one. We need plumbers’ advice when designing a city sewer system, but we wouldn't want a room full of plumbers telling us how to do it.
On to another risk of why a politically-based scientific organization can be bad. The tobacco industry has very effectively used “health” scientists for decades. In politics, well, we know how the Nazis used medical scientists. But, to the point. Even if any skepticism about this organization's true intentions are unfounded, there is still too great a risk that the cause will become more important to the
scientist than is the science.
I've heard people decribe how Chiropractic science is devoted to proving Chiropractic. If scientists become too involved in the politics of public policy, will it be any different? How far do scientists go in the support of a cause before the true ideals of evidence-based scientific philosophy begin to be compromised? Cox-2 inhibitors getting on the market might make for an analogy of how real the onsequences of crossing the line can be.
Federal money and politics is a dominant factor in driving the health industry, and the temptation for a scientist to justify a less than pure scientific-based motive for supporting a political candidate to some extent is overwhelming. Even a scientist will hesitate to bite the hand that feeds him.
I think there is sometimes something not right and bordering on unethical when scientific or medical credentials are tossed around in certain political venues. Maybe the same way that many scientists don’t like the idea of a politician running around the world talking science.
"Scientist" might not be a superior title over "plumber" or "mother", but a scientist, as is implied by the NYT article describing this group, has the distinction that s/he represents an understanding of the cold hard facts about a science issue as presented by objective evidence. And a scientist, is therefore an unbiased expert when s/he speaks to that evidence.
In summary, I have 3 issues of antagonism.
1) I don't find it plausable that a credible "scientific" organization would allow itself to become a dog-and-pony show of politicians.
2) I don't see a scientific group as having any altruistic scientific credibility once it has been and siding with individual politicians or political groups. There is too great a risk that fundamental ideals of science regarding objective discovery will be compromised.
3) The biggest reason for antagonism is the appearance of a shallow political tactic of creating a "political party science war". For a political party to infer that it is the party of scientific truth is based on falacies of logic because, as an art, science is not always right or wrong.
Nawledge
--------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/us/politics/28science.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Scientists Form Group to Support Science-Friendly Candidates
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: September 28, 2006
Capitol Hill Watch | Concerned About Several Bush Administration Policies, Nonpartisan Scientist Organization Creates Effort To Elect Lawmakers Who
Support Scientific Research [Sep 28, 2006]
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.”
Organizers of the group, Scientists and Engineers for America, said it would be nonpartisan, but in interviews several said Bush administration science policies had led them to act. The issues they cited included the administration’s position on climate change, its restrictions on stem cell research and delays in authorizing the over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception.
In a statement posted on its Web site (www.sefora.org), the group said scientists and
engineers had an obligation “to enter the political debate when the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interest ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research.” -snip-
posted by nawledge at
8:44 PM
|
0 comments
