Do Scientists Have a Political Agenda?
In response to my piece on the ongoing deterioration of the world’s coral reefs, frequent commenter MarcoPolo suggests that the principal authors of the study are motivated by a political agenda. I respond:
I understand your often (constantly?) expressed contention that science has been corrupted by politics. While I can’t deny that this never happens at any level, it sure does seem unlikely that virtually every scientist who studies the environment is manipulated by some political agenda. Not only is it unlikely, it’s outrageous as well, i.e., the contention that hundreds of thousands of these people have sold their integrity to some anti-capitalist ideal.
Scottish empiricist David Hume wrote: “We always disbelieve the greater miracle.” Here, I simply ask: Which seems more improbable:
The fossil fuel industry has been systematically distorting the truth about the environmental consequences of their businesses. (Hint: they’ve admitted it.) or
All these scientists have sold their souls to the devil to impede economic growth?
You really have to believe a fairly tale to get this one wrong.
When political appointees stack the selection committees for funding research projects funded by the federal government it is only common sense and self preservation for scientists to sell their soul to the company store. It is all about producing data to advance the political agenda.
Craig,
I think you have misunderstood me.
While it’s true there are scientists who are politicians and outspoken advocates for politically activist organizations, I wasn’t implying that all scientists have “sold their souls to the devil”.
Scientists are also human, with the same political, philosophical and ideological opinions and convictions as other citizens. It’s understandable that after years of dedicated study, research etc, many scientists become deeply passionate and committed advocates for their chosen field of expertise.
That doesn’t mean they’ve “sold their soul”, these scientists are genuinely sincere.
But that doesn’t mean all scientists are saint-like personages, with pure hearts untainted by ideology or political agendas. Nor are scientists infallible oracles, possessing all human wisdom.
I can’t fail to notice you seem to place scientists on pedestals of unrealistic virtue. Each time a scientist is the subject of analysis or criticism, you leap to the defense claiming the fossil fuel industry is worse !
But so what ? The fossil fuel industry many be worse, but how is that relevant ? Since when do two wrongs make a right ?
Are some scientists corrupted by power, greed, honours, importance, fame and adulation ? Of course ! Are scientists more prevalent to these faults than other professions, probably not.
Can honest, hard working dedicated scientists become so committed to their field of expertise they lose objectivity ? The instances are too many to count. They are just human, the same as the rest of us, mostly neither saints nor sinners.
When scientist speak their research and opinions should be treated with respect. Likewise, their accuracy and motives should be subject to the same analysis and critical examination as any other advocate.
I think my original point is valid. It’s all too easy to be caught up in the “grand crusade” which may never happen, while neglecting the smaller, but realistic, things which folks like you and I can acheive to improve the environment.
Any genuine scientist who has both conviction and self confidence in their chosen discipline must push his/her point in the most vigourous ways possible during their very short tenure on this wonderful planet. I am not a scientist – but if I was I would be pushing my forefinger into the chest of every politician I could get access to in making important points. And that is about as political as one can get. We need our best and brightest global scientists to be ultra political with extreme prejudice.
Lawrence Coomber
The problem of global warming cannot be solved without political action. It is not enough for scientists to quote scientific principals and the results of scientific studies. Of course they must and should do that, but there are times when they must also know how to motivate non-scientists to support critical action. It is sometimes necessary to get psychologists who will conduct focus groups to develop arguments which are both scientifically accurate AND effective.
In my opinion, too little effort has been put into developing and testing arguments for effectiveness and using the most effective arguments to bring about necessary changes.
Perhaps the discussion of “scientists” and monetary influence is too narrow a discussion. Money can be a corrupting influence. It provides an incentive that tends to detract from any other. Money can be part of the general environment as it might be when we discuss the need to publish but also to acquire grants and other funding. Money can also be applied as a direct bribe to do or not to do or say something.
Most of the complaints against liberal scientific views is of the general kind while the findings against conservative viewpoints tend to be of the direct payment kind. This is my rather unscientific observation. I am not sure if systemic or direct corruption is worse but it does suggest what kind of bias we are more likely to find in different situations. But certainly not (we would hope) in all situations.
Scientists are not omniscience as they are neither “gods” nor “all knowing…although some seem to feel that they somehow are supposed to be. Rather science is a method or way of understanding the world. We do tend to put an aura around the field and its practitioners but we may be partially to blame. What is the alternative? We tried several thousand years of a religious outlook. Some would like to continue with that perspective. That also often lead to a holier than thou form of misguided leadership (and unquestioning followers.)
Perhaps eventually we will find some kind of blending where science is wrapped in a spiritual awe of the universe that does not depend so much upon leadership as common goals, an understanding and just a little sense of environmental gratitude. For now accepting the compromises that present themselves and an individual skill set enabling us to see through deception may be the best we can hope to accomplish.