Having ears, they hear not
Alan Leshner (president of the AAAS) writes in Science (Oct. 8 2004) about the recent reports that the US is losing its global preeminence in science “production”:
The United States should not be wasting energy right now on the question of its global scientific dominance. A far more fundamental issue is clouding the future. Both the U.S. policy climate and funding trends for science are deteriorating, and those changes pose significant risk to the future of U.S. science. …. What matters is that we are now experiencing a counterproductive overlay of politics, ideology, and religious conviction on the U.S. climate for science. …. Debates about intelligent design and about stem cell research often pit religious beliefs against scientific data and therapeutic promise, respectively. …. We need to focus our full energy on the U.S. home front, because the serious erosion of the climate that originally led to America’s preeminence in science is now threatening its very eminence–and thus, its future.
There’s no specifics mentioned on how the US is to “focus [its] full energy” and restore the “eroded” scientific climate. I imagine his prescription would involve reduced Congressional control over funding agencies, and of course the liberation of science from the shackles of religious and ideological conviction. He doesn’t explain *why* it’s “counterproductive” for religion, politics, and ideology to have some input on the conduct and direction of science – I wonder, incidentally, if he lumps research ethics into “ideology”? He doesn’t explain why the folks who write the checks that fund the labs aren’t supposed to have some say in how their money — *our* money — gets spent.
In fact, it’s hard not to hear this editorial as a throwback to the 18th Century (or earlier — could as easily have come from an alchemist). Then: the Naturall Phylosopher emerges from his laboratory in a mountaintop castle, coming before his aristocratic patron with promises to unravel all the secrets of the universe — if only he’s given more gold, and the methods aren’t questioned too closely. Change the patron to Congress and we have the “modern” position…. masquerading as something insightful and new.
The problem is that Science as Dr. Leshner implicitly describes it doesn’t really match how science is being done now, and particularly not publicly-funded science. The US government supports (or should support) science that’s expected to benefit the country, with “benefits” being defined ultimately by the taxpayers who fund the work, mediated by Congress and assorted bureaucracies. There’s a political consideration right there. A majority of taxpayers are still willing, at least on some level, to let some sort of religious and/or ideological conviction play a role in the decision (seen, for instance, in the tepid interest in embryonic stem cell research) — and most scientists are as well, for that matter.
It’s ideological or religious convictions that prevent inhumane treatment of animals, that prevent experimentation on unwilling people, that prevent workers from making up desperately-needed results out of whole cloth or skewing the interpretation in favor of their pet theory.
It’s political and ideological — some might say religious — convictions that caused the recent uproar over the scandal of an intelligent design paper in a peer-reviewed journal. (Publish a half-baked theory of doubtful long-term value? Fine — as long as it doesn’t contradict the basic principles of evolutionary biology.) It’s ideological — some might say religious — convictions that bias science against those who are themselves traditionally religious, if their private beliefs aren’t discarded at the lab door.
It’s political and religious convictions that lead taxpayers and politicians to question “research” that concludes teenagers are no more than animals, and that the best “treatment” for an epidemic of fatal STDs is to cut the risk of transmission to ~10%.
It’s ideological convictions among scientists (including Dr. Leshner) that give us the assumption that scientists should be relatively free from lay oversight; that a scientist’s country of origin shouldn’t affect his chances of getting published; that new lines of research should be pursued if they are interesting and potentially useful, even if public opinion is mixed.
It’d be interesting to hear on what grounds Dr. Leshner is willing to adhere to that last set of convictions, while condemning the rest for “eroding” the scientific climate. For that matter, it’d be interesting to hear which of the other convictions he thinks are new enough to have had a sudden change in the climate. Dr. Leshner’s editorial makes it sound like “external” influences on science are a recent development — but as he writes, “the historical question doesn’t really matter”, even though the history of science shows external personal and public influences on every page. He seems, on the whole, to be trying to advance Science (in the “scientism” sense) rather than actual science.
One Response to “Having ears, they hear not”
Still cannot read the entire post: it cuts off at the same place. If I select “view source” I can puzzle it out after a fashion, but I doubt that is what you want. And your remarks are well worth reading, even if I weren’t prejudiced.