“An endorsement of scientific thinking must first of all be
distinguished from any belief that members of the occupational guild called
‘science’ are particularly wise or noble.
“[A] call for anyone to think more scientifically must not be
confused with a call to hand decision-making over to scientists.
“A respect for scientific thinking is, adamantly, not the belief
that all current scientific hypotheses are true.”
—Steven Pinker, Enlightenment
Now: the case for reason, science, humanism, and progress, page 390-91
The Founding Fathers went to extraordinary
lengths to prevent the rise of tyranny in America. One of the main tools they
used was to structure government in a way that prevents any one branch from
acquiring too much power. That tool is known as checks and balances,
which gives each branch a way of checking the power of other branches, thus
maintaining a balance of power horizontally across the federal government and
vertically between the federal and state governments.
This roadblock to tyranny has been under attack
by statists for a long time, and is accelerating today, especially by the
collectivist Left. The latest attack comes at us in the name of science. In
op-ed appeared in the 10/6/19 New Jersey Star-Ledger, Scientists need
protection from political interference.* Preet Bharara and Christine
Todd Whitman** wrote:
Regardless of President Donald Trump’s fate in the impeachment
inquiry, his presidency has exposed serious fissures in our system of
government that require repair — especially when it comes to the integrity of
government research.
This isn’t the first time this administration has retaliated
against scientists for doing their jobs.
So it’s not scientists that need
protection. It is government scientists--that is, taxpayer-funded
research. The authors give examples, such as:
The Interior Department moved a climate scientist to an accounting
role after he stressed the dangers of climate change to Alaska’s Native
communities. A recent tally by the Union of Concerned Scientists listed more
than 120 attacks on science by the Trump administration.
And:
The Trump administration’s abuses are extreme, but this White
House is far from the first to lay siege to government scientists. Our new
report documents how the current and previous administrations have manipulated
the findings of government scientists, suppressed government research they did
not like from reaching the public, retaliated against career government
scientists for upholding the integrity of their work and invited special
interests to help shape government research.
For instance, political officials at the Environmental Protection
Agency during the Obama administration made last-minute changes to a report
highlighting the dangers of fracking on drinking water by playing down the
risks.
AND:
In 2008, NASA’s inspector general published a report describing
how the agency’s public affairs office suppressed climate-change science and
barred a top scientist, James Hansen, from speaking to the media. During this
episode, a politically appointed public affairs officer rejected an NPR
producer’s request to interview Hansen, arguing that his job was “to make
(President George W. Bush) look good.”
Do you notice a theme here? Do you smell
politics? All of these objections involve in some way the most politicized
issue of science there is today—climate change. Yet, Bharara and Whitman demand
“protection” from “political interference”:
First and foremost, Congress should pass scientific integrity
standards for the executive branch and require agencies to create policies that
guarantee these standards. These policies would apply both to employees and
contractors who conduct research for the federal government directly, as well
as federally funded research and development centers. At their most basic,
these standards would ensure that the science conducted at these agencies is
free from politics, ideology and financial conflicts of interest.
First, let’s be clear. There is no such thing as
government science. There is only government-funded science. But the funding
comes from taxing private economically productive individuals. The funding is
then used to hire private scientists. Incredibly, the authors assert:
Government science matters. It put Americans on the moon. It
helped create the internet. And today, it helps the government protect the
environment, improve our water and food safety, and provide the economic data
that help businesses and investors make wise financial decisions. It provides
advance warning when we’re in Mother Nature’s dangerous path.
So achievements of the private sector, of the
“employees and contractors and research and development centers” whose only
connection to the federal government is their funding, are brushed off as
“government science”.
Which brings us back to the politics. Notice
that the most egregious examples of “executive branch abuse” revolve around an
Environmentalist agenda mainly aligned with the collectivist Left, the
Democrats.
Why are Trump’s “abuses” automatically wrong?
Isn’t it possible that the scientist who “stressed the dangers of climate
change to Alaska’s Native communities?” is over-stressing the dangers to
support a political agenda? Why were Obama’s “last-minute changes to a report
highlighting the dangers of fracking on drinking water by playing down the
risks” wrong? What if the scientists overplayed the risks to drinking water due
to an animosity toward fossil fuels driven by climate change beliefs? On what
basis can anyone claim with a straight face that scientists are themselves
“free from politics, ideology and financial conflicts of interest?” Why is
“fossil fuel funded” science suspect, but politically funded science not?
Far from “abuses”, I would call Trump’s and
Obama’s actions a legitimate form of checks and balances. Why are the
government-paid scientists and their work sacrosanct? Are they immune to personal
biases? What if a scientist’s findings are politically slanted, or worse,
geared toward satisfying the biases of the politicians they rely on for their
funding or their very jobs?
What if these presidents brought in other
scientists from outside the “government science” establishment who may have a
different perspective and/or disagree with the supposedly infallible government
scientists? Why are government-paid scientists’ findings to be taken at face
value, but privately funded science findings are not?
The deification of science as the be-all and
end-all guide to government policy, as is now happening regarding climate, is a
dangerous trend in America. Marxism’s “scientific socialism” led to 100 million
murders under communist regimes. American Progressives’ early 20th Century
embrace of eugenics science led to racist policies in the U.S. and culminated
in Nazi extermination policies.
The government's career scientists are not
elected. They are not appointed by an elected president. Yet their work has an
enormous influence on policy. Look no further than climate science, which has
been co-opted by a major political party that seeks to ride an
alleged “climate crisis” into the power to impose a transformative society-wide socialist agenda on
America. Yet career government climate scientists are to be granted the exalted
status of being shielded from “political interference”, meaning they are not accountable
to the elected president or his appointees?
I think this is completely backwards. The
Executive Branch of the American government is accountable to the voters.
Therefore, the agencies under the jurisdiction thereof, and all of their
employees, appointed or career, directly employed or contracted, must be
accountable to the executive branch.
The conclusion that “No one political party has
a monopoly on science [and that] Congress should demonstrate as much by
shielding government scientists and their work from politicization” is
shocking. Like it or not, government-funded science is political,
because government funding of anything is the very definition of
politicization. If you don’t want politicization, fire all of the government-employed
scientists and stop all government funding of scientific research, direct or
indirect.
Until then, the ability of elected presidential
administrations to scrutinize and question the “government science” and the
employees that generate that research under its jurisdiction is what should be
protected. No one political party should have a monopoly on science, for sure. But
neither should any one branch of government. Administrations must be free
to disregard or “suppress” these scientists' conclusions, and to seek
independent private scientific input—as Trump has done in regards to climate
change—or consult other fields of thought such as energy, economics, or
political philosophy. Otherwise, congressional politicians who actual authorize
the funding for these agencies will be able to monopolize the science for its
own political purposes. It’s fine to publicly scrutinize the actions and
policies of presidential administrations. But simply cutting the executive
branch out of the equation is dangerously wrongheaded. We desperately need the
checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. We need
protection from dogmatic “science” as much as from politicized science. The
proposal to shield “government scientists” from accountability to the executive
branch is a slap in the face to our elections, to the voters, and to the system
of checks and balances that is vital to our self-governance.
Steven Pinker, a foremost champion of science,
advises us that a belief in science does not translate into the cult-like
“position that ‘science is all that matters’ or that ‘scientists should be
entrusted to solve all problems.’” The idea that “power should be transferred
to the culture of scientists,” he warns, is a “lunatic position.” [p. 390] Yet, that seems to be where Whitman and Bharara lean towards.
These two have held important political positions and are now co-chairs an
organization called the National Task Force on Rule of Law and Democracy
housed at the Brennan Center for Justice. They should know better.
* [This a reprint of a Washington Post article “In
Age of Trump, the Integrity of Government Research is in Shambles,” which
is locked behind a paywall.]
** [Christine Todd Whitman, president of the
Whitman Strategy Group, was administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency and governor of New Jersey. Preet Bharara is the former U. S. attorney
for the Southern District of New York. They are co-chairs of the National Task
Force on Rule of Law and Democracy housed at the Brennan Center for Justice.]
Related Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment