The Politicization of Science Continues
The mutation of science from a fact deriving and disseminating enterprise and into a political one, continues unabated. Now, a "pro science" political action committee has been created, allegedly nonpartisan, to promote candidates "who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy."
Baloney. Most of the debates we have over "science," aren't really scientific. They lie instead in the realms of values, ethics, philosophy, and religion. Take the embryonic stem cell debate, as just one example. This is primarily an ethical debate, whether federal taxpayers should pay for the destruction of and research upon embryos. That isn't a controversy science can answer scientifically. Science's contribution should be to describe honestly and candidly what is involved, what they hope to achieve, and the problems they face. Scientists are of course free to assert that destroying an embryo for research isn't unethical, and to lobby for funding, but those activities do not lie in the realm of science, and thus, should be given precisely as much and as little weight as anyone else's opinions about ethics and morality.
The fight over Plan B birth control, an issue about which I am not engaged as a public advocate, is another example. The complaint from "the scientists" has been that the FDA has been slow to approve the use of the "day after" birth control pill without a prescription. But as I understand it (and I only have general knowledge about this dispute), the primary controversy was not over whether Plan B is an effective contraceptive or over its safety--both science issues--but rather, involved whether minors should be permitted to purchase this product without parental knowledge or consent. Sorry, but that issue has little to do with science. It is a dispute over values, the rights of parents to know whether their kids are being medicated, whether the right of autonomy in this area should extend to minors, etc.
So, when these scientists say they want to support candidates who will accept the advice of scientists, what I think they really mean is that the values of "the scientists" should prevail in public policy controversies involving scientific issues. In other words, this PAC continues the process of devolving science into a mere special interest. And in the end, that is very bad for science.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:04 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
"Baloney" is exactly what I thought. There's 10 of them, and $250,000? So, there's not enough money in the science coffers? Maybe WARF gave the money to them instead of Thomson's laboratory work.
If there's not an older organization or some big bucks donor behind that $250,000, we're paying the school teachers and lab workers way too much.
The scientists had a valid point about Plan B - the approval was held up because of political wrangling over the recommended age, not because of science, but because of politics. It is an issue that should be left to legislatures, not the FDA, but the lifers seemed to think it was an easier route to use the FDA. Now, the appointment of the FDA commissioner is being held up because some Senator is trying to get RU-486 off the market by playing politics with the FDA because he knows he can't pass a law against it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The FDA creates regulations based on powers given by statute. Their powers did not arise in a vacuum and they are obliged to pursue regulatory processed according to statutory guidelines.
I don't know the arcania about the details of approval or disapproval, but I strongly suspect it isn't just based on "science." Regulations over what is and is not permitted in human subjects research, for example, aren't just based on science but on moral and ethical values designed to protect humans from exploitation. The same is true about the Animal Welfare Act that constrains some uses of animals in research. From a purely scientific perspective, these impede the enterprise since they can get in the way of obtaining knowledge. But we don't want science to be unfettered by moral concerns.
My point about Plan B is your point about Plan B. Whether minors should be allowed unfettered access to Plan B is not a science question. But it was the issue that the regulators had to decide. It wasn't "anti science" for regulators to take ethics and parental rigthts into account. It was to consider the whole picture.
The RU 486 issue is the flip side of the Hillary Clinton holding up approval over Plan B. And it illustrates how politicized these issues have become.
I will be writing a more detailed column about how "science" is being undermined by "scientists" pretending that issues which properly belong in the realms of ethics, morality, philosophy, and religion, are scientific.
Thanks for your contributions to SHS.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home