Thursday, December 15, 2011
Obama continues the "war on science"
I have grown weary of the narrative that portrays any political decision that conflicts with the recommendations of (most? some? important?) scientists as being part of a "war on science." Today's lead story on Politico continues the narrative, pointing to recent decisions by the Obama administration delaying new smog standards and rejecting recommendations that emergency contraception be made available to minors without a prescription. The fact that scientists have concluded that a certain practice would be safe for children or good for the environment is an important consideration, but it is not dispositive. Scientists could readily show that highway traffic deaths would be reduced dramatically if we required vehicles to be manufactured with a top speed of 30 mph. Obviously, we haven't done that because there are other values at stake. Casting such decisions as "science" versus "politics" or "religion" leads to a one-dimensional view of a constitutional democracy. Consider this excerpt from Politico's "politics over science" article:
“I feel like I am in a time warp,” said Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “These were both issues that the previous administration wrestled with and came down largely where this one has. So what is all this stuff about scientific integrity about? When the rubber meets the road on two crucial issues, science isn’t driving these decisions.”
The administration, following a personal review by Obama, will soon decide whether to expand an exemption for religious institutions from new rules that require health plans to offer free contraceptive coverage.
There are many different angles by which to denigrate religious liberty, but portraying the right not to pay for contraceptives as part of an anti-science agenda is more than a stretch. Science is important and should not be ignored in our politics, but science does not (and cannot) answer many of the questions that are (or at least should be) at the heart of our politics.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/12/obama-continues-the-war-on-science.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
http://www.classicreader.com/book/2281/22/
Very good, and common sense, thoughts on science and philosophy from G.K. Chesterton:
"In these days we are accused of attacking science because we want it to be scientific. Surely there is not any undue disrespect to our doctor in saying that he is our doctor, not our priest, or our wife, or ourself. It is not the business of the doctor to say that we must go to a watering-place; it is his affair to say that certain results of health will follow if we do go to a watering-place. After that, obviously, it is for us to judge. "
The concern voiced by those that you quote, Rob, seems to me to be smuggling in philosophy under the idea of "science", and a particularly ends-based analysis along with it.