At what point is the onus for all this on Americans? These politicians who are making these decisions are ultimately accountable to them, after all.
This gets to the reason I wrote this book. I think that if the majority of Americans stood up and said, "I am going to elect politicians who care about science in public policy and who vote that way," we would have much better public policy relating to science. Frankly, I don't think this is a partisan issue. Some of my best allies in this quest have been moderate Republicans and sometimes not even moderate Republicans who care about these issues.
Is science a subject that politicians are weary of—given that its findings aren't necessarily things people want to hear, like give up your cars because of climate change?
I think there are a lot of politicians that are afraid of it. One of the reasons I wrote this book is that some of the examples are so absurd. If you say in a vacuum, "Science should play a role," people get freaked out because a lot of people didn't do so well in high school science or whatever. But, if you say to them, "Congress passed a bill that allowed states to give health insurance coverage to fetuses but not the pregnant mother," people would say, "Well, that's insane."
I think the devil is in the details. If you say to the American public, "The Bush administration appointed not just one, but two people to direct the Office of Family Planning who are opposed to birth control, they would be horrified. So, I think what you have to do is give them examples of how this religious viewpoint has run amok. And it's not just about science. It's about these wacky policies that a majority of politicians are not willing to stand up against.
But, how do you get those ideas out to the people?
Well, this is my little effort.
Are you at all worried about how little the American public is reading these days?
I think that scientists and people who care about sound science need to be willing to go on TV shows and radio shows and write op-eds and talk in layperson's terms about how this politicization is hurting the public policies that affect their lives. I think what happens oftentimes is scientists sit in the ivory tower and wring their hands and then politicians don't pay attention. And I think this has happened to an extent. On my stem cell bill, I have seen scientists willing to come out so much more and talk about these policies. So, I think it has happened, but I think people need to be willing to enter the public discourse and to not think that it's somehow dirty—to be willing to go on FOX News and find a succinct way to talk about how the politicization of science is hurting us in our lives.
Are you worried at all about how airing this dirty laundry may affect your future attempts to spearhead bipartisan legislation?
The Republicans that I work with are all pro-science—guys like Mike Castle. A careful reading of my book shows that many of the great heroes are Republicans.
If I'm just silent in letting these things go wrong, then I'm complicit.... And everyone around here knows me. Several of my Republican colleagues, who are conservatives, said, "So, I heard you wrote a book." And I said, "Well, yes I did, and the good news for you is: you're not in it."
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentCome on, you copy editors. Hands aren't bells. People wring their hands, not ring their hands. (Second to last answer.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, what an incredibly one-sided article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCareful, Scientific American - your bias is showing.
Umm, that was an interview not an article genius
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am glad Rep. DeGette has spoken out against the politicization of the science of sex and reproduction by the religious right. Government should neither regulate nor subsidize any kind of science for any reason, but President Bush's veto against stem cell research was an egregious example of religion's increasingly successful attempts to erase the separation of church and state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue about stem cells research is so delicate because many hope in future possible applications. However, if a cleaner research branch performed as well it would surely be preferred, even by todays advocates of stem cells research. In the face of necessity, who is strong enough to hold on until a solution comprehensively acceptable is found? Sciences negative side effects will ultimately get domesticated through a wisdom package including issues about both science and human dignity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet a dictionary, brainiac.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRep. DeGette was interviewed for Nikhil Swaminathan's article.
DeGette is being dishonest in couching this debate as the "pro-science heroes" vs. the "antiscience conspiracy." The debate is not about supporting or opposing science; it's about an ethical debate surrounding a particular area of research. Shame on SciAm for perpetuating this dishonesty! http://www.leavethelightson.info/2008/08/scientific-american-interviews-diana.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's annoying here, is that no one seems to understand that the bush administration and the "right wingers," don't give a flying bat's hind end about issues, they _use_ them as cattle prods to control the sheeple. George W. is a known well shall we say friend to the non heterosexual as an intimate partner...you can verify that by searching on his name and the title Lips, but he and his used homosexuality as an issue to move things, cause a reaction amongst the emotionally younger in mind voters in order to sway an electoral populance..........bush doesn't have a moral stance, I doubt that he's had a moral thought....but you know that. Do yourselves a favor and learn the difference between having a position and "using others positions" as an emotional whip. Demagogurey is a live and well and being used as a political tool by former CIA officers embedded in the political systems, SEE: Jimmy Carter, Paris, Iran Contra, Russian, October Surprise, Robert M. Gates, George H.W. Bush, William Casey....it's called treason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdear occam since when is the truth biased....wanna dance? Do you know the difference between empirics and opinion? What a socratic dialogue implies? How many articles would show up if you searched on: bush funding Al Queada ??? what do the Nazis have to do with the bush family? How is Allen Dulles connected with the Bush family??? Who is Prescott Bush??? Or for that matter what does the CIA drug trafficking have to do with Dick Cheney, CentGas, George H.W. Bush, Zalmay Khalizad, Harmid Karzai, and Condolezza Rice???? Can you say......treason?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBravo! The Bush administration is so anti-science that they are an embarrassment to the rest of the civilized world. When government restricts scientific research for their own twisted agenda they need to be challenged at every turn. Degette should be commended for her efforts. Thank you SciAm for running the interview.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLucid13: Get a grip. This is not an issue of pro-science v. anti-science. That's a mischaracterization by DeGette. I wrote in detail about this dishonesty here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMIScharacterization, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........that's what I would have said was the normal position of those of YOUR ILK. DeGette seems to be a straight shooter.....the bush administration???? KIlled many IRAQI or Afghani or Panamanian or Salvadoran or Ecuadoran or Colombian or Peruvian or Palestinian or Kurdish babies today.....morally upright???? How's about MORALLY BANKRUPT with some propaganda news casts......and the RELIGIOUS RIGHT......just keep sending that money in to prove that Jesus loves you....like that's what Jesus wants is televangelists with greasy hair making money....off of him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you interview a politician, you get political comments. No surprise there. But DeGette is correct in saying that a narrow religious view has taken control of the Republican "base", a view based on a literal reading of ancient scripture without the intellectual effort of understanding the tribal context in which it was written. So we have people, some of them in government, who think their salvation hinges on insisting that the universe is a few thousand years old and that we all have an obligation to criminalize anything that would interfere with cranking out as many babies as we can. They are afraid to think more deeply than that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Degette expresses not so much the "politician's" comments, but those of a woman and mother, who wants cures to be realized for our children, without science being politicized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat struck me was this comment: "I think that if the majority of Americans stood up and said, "I am going to elect politicians who care about science in public policy and who vote that way," we would have much better public policy relating to science. "
It is with that in mind that I am currently running for US Congress myself:
http://www.FayeforCongress.com
Perhaps I'm dreaming, but I think that science should be politically neutral because it is empirically-based knowledge. Unfortunately, it's not because scientific research can lead to politically unpalatable conclusions that affect the balance of power in a society (Witness global warming and stem cells as just two examples). In short, if the laws of physics say that a hammer will fall at 32 ft/sec squared on Earth, it doesn't mater if you are liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican. It will hurt when it lands on your head.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen the US will fall behind in this field, it is as simple as that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe right always shouts BIAS BIAS BIAS whenever something can logically explain the fallacies of their 'because i said so' type positions. Don't worry Sci-Am, nothing's more biased than the right wing rhetoric claiminb bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother liberal hating to be disagreed with always the rightwing how about leftwing dems. tyhe worlds best liars
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAways the same from the liberial left the worlds best liars Blame the right wing what the left wing who has more failed programs and more gov. and more gov. and if you disagree you ae rightwing what ever the weekly term give the worl ma break fade away
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this