Former Vice President Joe Biden often said, “Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value.”
Judging by that standard, President Donald Trump recently showed us what he valued with a budget that proposed massive cuts to medical, scientific and climate change research. Whereas past presidents might favor some initiatives over others, the magnitude and breadth of the decrease in funding sent a clear message about priorities and illustrates a dismaying trend in how some Americans value the role that science plays in our democracy.
Since the time of this country’s founding, taxpayers have subsidized research and development to grow the economy, encourage innovation and increase prosperity. Although there were some people — even Thomas Jefferson — who objected, it was commonly understood that investing in research and development was a way to help the greater good. Today, however, it is harder to come to a common understanding on the greater good because there is so much disagreement on the role that science should play in public policy.
But is Biden’s standard valid? Only to a statist. From a standard of individual rights, it is not. There is no connection between valuing science and supporting government funding of science. Jefferson was right to oppose government funding. Zwicker and Hodges obviously equate respect for science with government funding of science. It’s amazing, therefor, to read this statement later in the essay:
[S]cientific results and the scientific process have never been about politics. Evidence has no association with any political party, nor does it come with a certain world view; it just is.
The authors state that “The simple fact is that too many Americans today value scientific results by how much it conforms to their pre-existing beliefs instead of adjusting their beliefs to the science.” True enough. But are politicians immune to this bias? The authors would have us believe that they are.
Government funding is by definition politicized science, precisely because politicians must approve of who gets the funding. Are we to believe that politicians will somehow avoid approving of funding to scientists who do not produce scientific conclusions based on “how much it conforms to their pre-existing beliefs instead of adjusting their beliefs to the science?” Don’t make me laugh.
Government funding manufactures scientific “consensus” that conforms to the politicians’ beliefs, and the scientists know it. They know what their future funding depends on. And since government funding carries with it the imprimatur of “official,” you end up with science as dogma. Ayn Rand called this “the establishing of an establishment”: Government funded research morphs into the standard, with non-governmental research that doesn’t conform to this standard being pushed outside the “mainstream.”
Anyone who values science as a reference from which to draw rational conclusions should demand the separation of science and state, in the same way and for the same reasons as separation of church and state.
Related Reading:
On Trump and Government Scientists
America’s ‘Science Problem,’ America’s Ideology Problem
Philosophy, Who Needs It?—Ayn Rand, Chapter 14, “The Establishing of an Establishment,” Page 162
Why I Don't Trust the "Climate Consensus"
No comments:
Post a Comment