Politicization of science
From Free net encyclopedia
Current revision
The politicization of science is the act of treating science as a politicized issue and typically occurs when government, business or interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research, or influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted.
Some also contend that scientists may attempt to politicize science by using scientific findings to support a political outcome which will influence research funding or the prestige of their chosen field or speciality. Template:Fact
Contents |
Examples
The "Waxman report"
In the United States, Democratic Congressman Henry A. Waxman and the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee released a report in August 2003 which concluded that the administration of George W. Bush has politicized science in many areas and appointed key decision makers who shared the administration position on major issues. The issues analyzed in the report include sex education based on sexual abstinence. The report concludes that the administration modified performance measures for abstinence-based programs to make them look effective. In so doing, the Waxman report articulates positions long held by the California politician. It also finds that the Bush administration appointed a prominent advocate of abstinence-only programs, Dr. Joe McIlhaney, to the Advisory Committee to the CDC’s Director. It claims that information about comprehensive sex education was removed from the website of the Center for Disease Control. Other issues considered include agricultural pollution, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and breast cancer. The report finds that a National Cancer Institute website has been changed to reflect the administration view that there may be a risk of breast cancer associated with abortions. The website was updated after protests and now holds that no such risk has been found in recent, well-designed studies.
Global warming and ozone depletion
Ozone depletion is now considered by many a settled issue; by contrast, what to do about global warming remains an issue of strong political debate, which has lead to charges of politisation on both sides.
In 1991, a US corporate coalition including the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electrical Institute created a public relations front called the "Information Council for the Environment" (ICE). ICE launched a $500,000 advertising and PR blitz to, in ICE's own words, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)." Burton and Rampton charge that the claims about the "politicization of science" regarding global warming are part of a deliberately engineered public relations campaign to reduce the impact any international treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, might have on the business interests sponsoring the campaigns. Conversely, skeptics of global warming have decried alarmism.
Frederick Seitz has charged that politicization makes it virtually impossible for scientists to get funding to pursue hypotheses which run counter to prevailing ideas. This process is ocassionaly cited as suppressing dissent against "mainstream'" theories (part of an overall system of suppression of intellectual dissent). Climate skeptics, like Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Sallie Baliunas, though continue to receive public funding.
External links
- Politics & Science: Investigating the Bush Administration's Promotion of Ideology Over Science. Website by US Congressman Henry Waxman and the Government Reform Committee.
References
- Chris Mooney (2005). The Republican War on Science.
- Union of Concerned Scientists (2004). Scientific Integrity in Policy Making: Investigation of the Bush administration's abuse of science. [1]