On Science, On Politics

Over at HorseAss (a lberal blog) "Lee" criticizes Senator Grassley for wanting to restgrict a crime commission form considering the isssues of drug crime. Lee, of course is correct on this, buit his point raises a hbigger issue .. how can Sceince have a real voice in politics?

The inconvenient truth is that science is impartial. On some issues we scientists have NO useful information ... e.g. on when "life" begins or the morality of anal correctness. On other issues of concern to both the right and the left ,science stands against political hypocrisy .. e.g the issues of inheritance of "intelligence" or the history of evolution.

Support for Science, mo0reover, is not really a political issue. There are strong congressional partisans for NIH and NSF from BOTH the red and blue sides of the aisel, although the specifics of their support may reflect jobs in Texas more than A commitment to quantum mechanics.

Still, science is tingled by political color. The obvious fact is that the Radical Republican Right has adopted a huge anti science agenda. Liberal democrats and moderate republicans SHOULD unite to undermine the RRR.

There are three specific issues here:

1. Strengthening Tenure. The independence of qualified scientists from political decisions is critical to objectivity. Liberals AND conservatives ... for different reasons ... undermine the independence of faculty. The usual arguements that universities serve to teach and that should be more like the business world are deeply disturbing.

2. Creating a Cabinet Level Secretary of Science. The use of czars is a poor substitute for having a cabinet level position. Surely a Secretary of Sce3ince makes as much sense as a Secretary of Commerce?

3. Creating a Congressional Science Office tied to the National Academy. Like the CBO, the Congressional Science Office (CSO) could be an apolitical body to endorse scientific positions.

#3 gets to Lee's concern with Grassley (isn't THAT an ironic name here?). Senator Greassley is correct that Congress must define the charges of Commissions. However, BOTH sides of the grass debate misuse science. On Lee's side there are naturopathic claims for pot as a miracle drug while the bizarre worl of "reefer madness" is likely a big part of Senator Grassley's view. Wouldn't we all benefvit from Congres snhaving a CSO?