Bringing Back Science

The Bush administration is almost over, so the current media buzzword is “legacy.” One of the most unfortunate pieces of that legacy is the war on science waged by President Bush and co. On climate change, stem cell research, green technology, species protection, and reproductive health, they openly ignored scientific research. More shocking were the steps they took to hinder research that might be politically inconvenient. See this article for a longer musing on the subject; it pieces together how Bush officials have interfered with and ignored scientists.

It’s time for that dismissive attitude to change. Based on Obama’s most recent radio broadcast, come January 20th, it looks like American science will be freed from the shackles of our small-minded executive. Obama said eloquently,

“The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient - especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.”

I can see why he got the endorsement of 61 American Nobel laureates in physics, medicine, and chemistry.

The Bush administration has been abysmal for science. Their actions reflect the belief that ideology is more important than facts. As students, I believe we must reject that approach. We must be committed to reasoned inquiry, even if we might not like the answers we find.

America must renew its commitment to science if we wish to remain the leading nation in the Western world.

Food for thought The more I think about it, the Bushian attitude towards science – that it is less important than one’s personal beliefs – is not just an isolated oddity, but a symptom of his whole mental outlook. Bush seems to value his gut more than his brain (Consider the incident where he said he had “looked into [Russian President Vladimir Putin’s] heart” and determined that “he’s a good man,” or his comment that “I really don’t feel comfortable in the role of analyzing myself.” You can probably think of other examples). It concerns me how many people seemed to like this down-to-earth intuition, and makes me worry whether we have devalued facts and intellect in our public debate. I once heard someone say, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Let’s keep that in mind.