Bush v. Science

Skip's comments about the theocratic right's efforts to stifle birth control in a recent post about the South Dakota Abortion Ban tipped me off to a larger issue -- the way we perceive science is changing.

"Since the Enlightenment," writes Michael Specter for the New Yorker, "scientific enterprise has been defined by an ethic of independent inquiry and by reliance on data that can be observed, tested, analyzed, and repeated. The scientific method has come to shape our notion of progress and of modern life. Science has largely dictated the political realities of the twentieth century." Not many people would disagree -- the atomic bomb, radar, quinine, and dramatic advances in health were in large part responsible for American victory in World War II. Shortly thereafter, the United States began investing heavily in scientific research, offering strong federal funding to American colleges and universities. The result was that the U.S. became a technological superpower.

While any federally funded project is subject to the government's political will and while scientists are no less likely to consider themselves Democrats or Republicans, science was considered in many respects a world apart from politics. "In bringing science into the high councils of government, the presidential indifference to their politics and party affiliations reflected the belief that science and scientists were above politics," wrote Daniel S. Greenberg in "Science, Money, and Politics."

Now, however, science and politics seem to be in competition. The most glaring example is stem cell research. The enormous potential benefit of developing stem cells (those that do not yet serve a particular function and that can turn into any tissue or organ in the body -- described as "blank checks" by some) seems undeniable, yet the extreme right's seemingly unfounded moral reservations have put research in a chokehold. Bush's famous description of embryos as "snowflakes" each "with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being" doesn't quite do it for me. While on its face, his statement is true, it does not address the issue that blastocysts, in effect hollow balls of a hundred or so stem cells, don't have nerves or any human qualities. Moreover, as it stands, embryos left over at in-vitro-fertilization clinics are off limits to researchers. While this moral debate will rage for some time to come, scientific progress will slump. [By the way, if abortion is legal, why isn't most stem cell research?]

Stem cell research is but one area of exciting scientific progress stifled by the Bush Administration. White House support for intelligent design is outright embarrassing. A year ago, Bush signed the bill that would require that Terry Schiavo's feeding tube be reinserted. Thankfully, the Supreme Court didn't waste their time on the case and an autopsy confirmed that she was unaware of her condition and incapable of recovering. Merck's application for a cancer-curing vaccine is currently in the air as it protects against human papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted disease in the country. (Note: certain strains of HPV cause cancer). Religious conservatives argue in opposition to its approval that there's no need for the vaccine where it's completely preventable with abstinence. "More kids would have sex," they whine. They utter the same cry at condom education in schools. Unfortunately for them, studies show no difference in sexual activity between groups who are so educated and those who are not, or those who are made to undergo "abstinence 'til marriage" programs. By the way, as it stands, government policy requires 1/3 of HIV-prevention money to go to these abstinence programs.

I've got to cut this short, but it's easy to keep on going.

The United States is falling rapidly in science education as well. Sure, Bush acknowledged the need to educate more scientists in order to remain competitive with the rest of the world (stating, ever so eloquently, that students shouldn't think of researchers as the "nerd patrol"), but he isn't doing much about it.

Oh yeah, Bush's scientific-spending increase proposals for 2006 devote 97% of the increase to weapons development and space-exploration vehicles.

Does America really fear progress?