The editorial in the June 18th issue of New Scientist states:
It would be difficult to think up a worse way of deciding where to put your nuclear waste. First, conduct the process in secret: lock the project’s scientists behind closed doors and do not allow them to publish to their peers. Then, abandon science as a way to select suitable sites and choose instead a politically convenient location near a nuclear plant.
That, in essence, is what the UK did in the 1980s and 1990s when it chose deep rocks beneath the sprawling nuclear complex at Sellafield in north-west England as the preferred destination for its radioactive waste. The government eventually rejected that site in 1997, on scientific grounds.
The choosing of the Sellafield site was purely political. Nirex, the agency responsible for choosing the site, admitted that Sellafield (and another site) were chosen by the criteria of their support for nuclear activities rather than any scientific basis. This is a good example of the dangers of politicised science.
The main arena where science collides with politics is in the United States. The report Politics and Science in the Bush Administration by the Committee On Government Reform — Minority Office lists quite a few areas where the Bush Administration has either suppressed or distorted scientific findings. The most egregious examples of political interference have been in regards to climate change. But let’s look at a lesser known example that has found its way into Australian parliament via the abortion debate.
A few years ago a group of Republican congressmen pressured the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to change a web page that stated there was no link between breast cancer and abortion. The NCI caved in and made a change to indicate that such a link was inconclusive. As Chris Mooney writes there is no valid link between breast cancer and abortion. This is a standard tactic in regards to applying political pressure to science. When the facts are inconvenient create the idea that controversy or doubt exists where there is actually none.
Unfortunately as blogged by yours truly back in March, it has been raised in Australian parliment by Senator Ron Boswell as one of his questions of notice to Tony Abbott.
Climate change is another area in which the Bush Administration has suppressed or altered data. Reports on climate change from the Environmental Protection Agency have been deliberately altered to reflect conclusions in line with the Bush Administration’s ideals as documented here . Another example is the bullying of certain scientists by Republican Joe Barton. And it is bullying. Barton’s request for information is a blatant attempt to intimidate and harass scientists.
While science is not a democracy in regards to how theories achieve ascendancy, the process works in a democratic context. Peer review cannot work if results are suppressed or censored. Scientists cannot work if they are subject to political interference and their freedom is compromised. Progress in science is based on openness and sharing of information. Science as a process has integrity. It also has authority for the general public as a source of objective information. It belongs to us all and not to narrow political and ideological concerns whether right or left. Undue government influence on science affects free speech and the ability of the public to judge whether the actions of the government are in the best interests of the people.
For the history buffs (both science and political) the story of Trofim Lysenko is a good (but extreme) example what happens when science is subordinated by the state.
Note that this piece is a companion piece to The Gender of Science. A third piece on the corporate influence on science I intend to post in a few days (timely in light of the Pan Pharmaceutical court case).
While science is not a democracy in regards to how theories achieve ascendancy, the process works in a democratic context.
That’s an extremely good, and extremely important point, Irant.
Thanks Mark. Not sure what has happened with the trackback. I’ve deleted it as it basically reposted everything.
I wonder if Barton is a descendant of the ultra-right congressman of the same name who was one of FDR’s congressional adversaries. In the 44 election, FDR enjoyed himself having a go at three Republicans – “Martin, Barton and Fish” – and his constant invocation of their names made them sound like some dodgy law firm or the like.
Barton has his fingers over a whole lot of shonky science, he was a key source for RFK Jr’s recent disgraceful articles on autism and vaccinations.
This is also pertinent when you consider the push in the United States by the Intelligent Design believers to have their theories taught in schools and accepted by mainstream scientific institutions.
Good point Kate. ID is basically a political movement and could have been easily included. The problem was not what to include but what to leave out.
Check some bios Mark and I don’t think the Barton’s are related.
Thanks Amanda. I’ve read about JKK jr’s article but did not realize Barton was involved.
Actually I might retract that since I can’t find the source I thought I remembered, I might have been thinking of some other random Republican.
Amanda, can you tell us more about the articles you mentioned?
Let’s not even start on global warming deniers either…
This link is a good source of into (and atakedown) on RKJ jr’s article.
Yikes! Maybe he should emulate JFK and get people to ghost-write fluffy books about courage instead!
You’d think after writing JKK and RKJ I’d eventaully get around to correctly writing RFK.
A month or so ago Robert F Kennedy, Jr wrote a piece for Salon and Rolling Stone called Deadly Immunity about the alleged link between thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative) in vaccines and autism in children. There is no real evidence for this link but it forms the basis of a conspiracy theory anyway, and RFK’s article is all about a govt/Big Pharma coverup, which when you actually read the documents is nothing of the sort. Lots of emotive language, scaremongering, quote mining etc but not alot of fact, and his sources are unfortunately those at the front of the professional anti-vaccine brigade (and/or those pushing quack treatments for autism like chelation.) I like the guy and was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt but unfortunately he declined to seriously consider the legitimate criticisms of his facts and conclusions. Happily, this is where the blogosphere can serve a serious and important purpose, real information can get about just as easily as misinformation.
See extensive coverage at
Orac Knows
Autism Diva
Skeptico
correct Orac Knows link
First blog link’s broken, Amanda.
But thanks for that.
Bring on the Synrock!
“ID is basically a political movement and could have been easily included.”
# Yeah, ID has a bit of a problem when it comes to some really really really basic stuff such as the stupidly high rate of mortality of women giving birth and babies at birth before modern medicine. Not a good design at all really.
You will no doubt be happy to know that the body Australian Research Council (the body responsible for distributing the $500million in public money for research) is to be restructured such that there will no longer be a board, but an executive that then makes suggestions to the Minister!!
Holy crap!
So instead of the stamps of approval coming from a peer-assessed merit based system it will now be subject to executive powers involving a freaking career politician!
Since one of Australia’a strongest and most successful arms of research is Medical Research, and that Medical Research is one of the most subject to political interference, I have a very bad feeling in my water.
What hope for alternate energy research?
Thanks for the info, Harry. I’ll have a look into that as it is disturbing if the Minister (and it won’t matter what party is in power) is to make the decisions. I would grant an exemption if it was someone like Barry Jones.
Robyn Williams has an op-ed in today’s SMH on science titled The Reality of “Absolute Truth’. Interesting reading in light of the science themes of my posts.