More Alarms Cries and Calls to Arms
by MikeGenePaul Costello is executive director of communications and public affairs for Stanford University School of Medicine. He too is sounding the Alarm Cry:
Costello warns:
So you have to ask yourself in light of all of these events, are we headed back to the past with no escape in the future? Are we trapped in a new period of history when science, once again, is in for the fight of its life?
What has Costello speaking from this state of fear?
In times like these, as inundated as we are by technical wizardry, one might conclude that American technological supremacy and know-how would lead, inevitably, to a deeper understanding or trust of science. Well, it doesn't. Perhaps just the opposite is true. Technology and gee whiz gadgetry has led to more suspicion rather than less. And a typical American's understanding of science is limited at best. As far as evolution is concerned, if you're a believer in facts, scientific methods, and empirical data, the picture is even more depressing. A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science found that 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools. A near majority"”48 percent"”do not believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries. Thirty-three percent believe that a general agreement does not exist among scientists that humans evolved over time.
So we see the same thing that we just saw with Alberts . The "shocking" survey data are the same results we have seen every time one of these polls has been taken over the last 25 years. Thus, any time you want to sound the alarm bell, just commission one of these surveys and report the disturbing "findings."
Yet Alberts and Costello not only neglect this temporal context, their fixation on science has them neglecting another context. Y'see, such poor showings are not unique to scientific literacy. If geography is your topic, you could point out that 69% of Americans (18-24) could not find the United Kingdom on a map. If history is your thing, you could point out that only 38 percent in the same age grouo could correctly identify President Herbert Hoover (also see this). I'm sure Math teachers and English teachers could likewise find poll results to complain about.
In other words people, this is not a science education problem. To the extent that there is a problem, this a systemic, core problem with the entire American educational system itself. Those who have crafted and nourished this failed system over the last few decades are now the ones who are looking for scapegoats. Well, I suppose it's an "easy out" to blame creationists for a poor understanding of fossils and Darwin's theory, but you'll have a hard time blaming the creationists for a poor understanding of geography and American history.
Costello then goes on to cite such objective observers as Chris Mooney and Burt Humburg. Those of us plugged into this issue know what that's about.
But then there is the great moment of irony. Costello begins with a very wise observation:
Science politicization threatens not just our public health and the environment but the very integrity of American democracy, which relies heavily on scientific and technical expertise to function. At a time when more political choices than ever before hinge upon the scientific and technical competence of our elected leaders, the disregard for consensus and expertise"”and the substitution of ideological allegiance for careful assessment"”can have disastrous consequences.
Indeed. But now check out his solution:
It is time for the medical community, through the initiative of individual physicians, to address not only how one can heal thy patient, but also how one can heal thy nation. There are many ways to get involved; from the most rudimentary"”attending school board meetings, sending letters to the editor, and volunteering at the local science museum"”to the more demanding"”running for office, encouraging a spouse or partner to do so, or supporting candidates (especially financially) who are willing to speak out for science. As Tip O'Neill, the larger-than-life Speaker of the House of Representatives, famously declared, "All politics is local." Speak out for science. Isn't that a message that should be advanced in every physician's office?
The solution to science politicization is to enhance and amplify the politicization. Costello and others seem to think that scientists, scholars, and physicians can join the political debate by bringing their expertise and reputations with them. What they never seem to get is that by joining the political debate, they simply damage the credibility of their respective fields. It becomes easier and easier for people to disregard the academic "consensus and expertise" when such consensus and expertise is now part of the political landscape. In fact, in my next blog, let me show you exactly how this will work.
December 4th, 2005 at 1:18 am
Well perhaps he should cognizant of some facts
1. Bill Frist, Senate Majority leader favorable to ID is a Havard MD. Is Costello presuming Bill Frist is somehow uneducated in these issues, and therefore he's in need of some sort of enlightenment like everyone else? That a Harvard trained MD is somehow un-appreciative of science?
(Physicians on ID and Creation)
Perhaps part of the reason is lots of them are creationists or sympathetic to ID!
2. 18% of physicians believe in Adam and Eve
3. 42% of physician believe in God Guided evolution
4. When the question was phrased in terms of ID vs. Evolution (not exactly a fair question), 34% responded in favor of ID
5. 42% of the physicians belive ID is a legitimate scientific speculation, including 2% of the atheists who believe ID is a legitimate scientific speculation.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 4, 2005 @ 1:18 am
December 4th, 2005 at 1:40 am
Stuff like this just gets me. It seems one of the overall problems is people like Costello (and others who've been reported on here at TT) who can only see (or foresee as the case may be) a dangerous, hardened, anti-scientific Orthodoxy when theology can be spotted somewhere in the foreground. The fact of the matter is Orthodoxy can be, and even is, more dangerous when theology is absent. Not because theology is a necessary part of the equation per se, but because people — just as Costello seems to be doing — actually think that the threat of Orthodoxy is somehow removed when anything and everything religious and theological — and whatever else the Powers That Be want to define as 'unscientific' — are out of the mix. A mind-set that, ironically enough, leads precisely to that "dangerous, hardened, anti-scientific orthodoxy". This is the same irony and tragedy of the teenager who injures himself drinking and driving because he was always sure that 'nothing will happen to me.' Unfortunately, the very thing Costello (et al) claim to be fighting against is actually something they are fighting for.
Comment by Dane Parker — December 4, 2005 @ 1:40 am
December 4th, 2005 at 3:22 am
Roger Pielke, Jr. has some good critiques of Mooney's thesis over at the TPMcafe. One of his arguments is that Mooney's thesis isn't only false but that it will further politicize science by scientists, rather than just politicians. Pielke has also written quite a bit on the politicization of science that Prometheus blog at the University of Colorado.
Comment by macht — December 4, 2005 @ 3:22 am
December 4th, 2005 at 9:15 am
Macht,
Thanks for the good links. Chris Mooney is an excellent illustration. In talking about the atheist political strategy about the Pledge, he says:
Chris Mooney: Right. I didn't make this point in my article, but as a Democrat, I certainly could have.
What's this? A Democrat wrote a "surprising" "eye-opening" book entitled The Republican War on Science? Tell me it ain't so! What? He even sells his books at University Democrat organizations?
Does Mooney let us know that he is a Democrat here? No.
On the contrary, when I looked around, he typically gets this type of soft-touch:
Now, you tell me. How does the average Republican react when they hear that a Democrat has written a book accusing Republicans of attacking science? Are they supposed to make believe that the Democrat came to this subject in a purely objective, scholarly manner? Because he says so? Because he has like-minded colleagues who say so? Mooney may travel in a herd where he is treated as an "author" or "journalist," but the extent that his book becomes a player in the political landscape is the same extent that he becomes a "Democrat."
Just imagine the AAAS and NAS coming out for the first time to endorse a presidential candidate. Now imagine that candidate proudly proclaiming they are the Science Candidate (even getting some big scientists to travel the campaign circuit) and accusing the opposition of being "˜anti-science.' Gee, might the political opposition hit back? What if, for example, the AAAS members don't have a history of being evenly split along political party lines?
Comment by MikeGene — December 4, 2005 @ 9:15 am
December 4th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
I have a friend who is a journalist and he doesn't vote because of his profession. Of course, he isn't a "pundit rock star." Mooney also quite openly says that science journalists shouldn't be balanced. He even criticizes newspapers who have balanced opinion pages.
Comment by macht — December 4, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Hi Macht,
Good stuff, thanks.
I'm still struck by the fact that Mooney, when hawking his anti-Republican book, refuses to divulge he is a Democrat; he comes to the issue with zero objectivity yet he is treated if he has just that. If you ask me, people like Mooney are a greater threat to science than people like Johnson. As Mooney tries to seduce scientists to become more politicized, he is selling a message that will be seriously damage the public perception of science. And when that happens, people like Mooney will be whining and looking for scapegoats, further entrenching the polarization he nurtured in the first place.
Let me share an e-mail I sent to Scott Adams:
Of course, consider the impact of my argument if it's about attacking millions and millions of Republicans and not some fringe ID movement.
Comment by MikeGene — December 4, 2005 @ 5:45 pm