Jonathan Foley and Christine Arena opine that the decision to constrain and muzzle scientific research signals an important milestone. The War on Science has shifted into high gear. This is a fight for our future, and scientists as well as citizens had better prepare for what is coming next. At his confirmation hearings last week, the new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt unveiled the new language of this war, a subtle, yet potentially damaging form of science skepticism. Manmade climate change, he says, is subject to continuing debate. There is reason to be concerned about methane released by fracking, but he is not deeply concerned. And research on lead poisoning is not something he has looked into. The systematic use of so-called uncertainty surrounding well-established scientific ideas has proven to be a reliable method for manipulating public perception and stalling political action.
And while certain private interests and their political allies may benefit from these tactics, the damages are something we will all have to face. First and foremost, science supporters must articulate a very clear choice about the future that all Americans can relate to. Not something abstract, which only scientists care about, like the levels of research funding, the criticisms of evolutionary biology, or the pressures on government scientists. Or do want America to mimic failed regimes of the past, where knowledge and science were deliberately suppressed to benefit a few, to funnel more profits into dying industries, and placate the prejudices of a mob? Traditionally, scientists have been coached to steer clear of the political fray. But if the past few weeks have taught us anything, it is that now is the time for a quantum leap of political relevance. Science is intimately connected to politics. It always has been. After all, politics is how we are supposed to solve problems in a democratic society, and science is crucial to nearly everything we do.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
