A Stern Commentary: Howard Stern Calls Out Rick Perry for His Anti-Science Views

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


No shortage of articles have been published about the deep distrust exhibited by most 2012 Republican presidential candidates toward specific scientific findings—notably evolution and climate change—as well as in some cases toward science itself. Rush Limbaugh, who shapes the opinions of a large audience of conservatives, has labeled science as one of the "Four Corners of Deceit," along with government, the media and academia. (Academic researchers and federal agency scientists are thus doubly deceitful in Limbaugh's worldview.)

But another radio personality with a big following often speaks out these days in favor of science. Howard Stern may have a reputation as a "shock-jock" with a dirty mouth. But as a broadcaster with almost four decades of experience in terrestrial and now satellite radio, he is well versed in the technology of his medium. And he's a "big fan," as he puts it, of other technology he uses in his daily life. What follows is a transcript of a few minutes of a conversation he had with his broadcast partner Robin Quivers at the start of his September 8th show. The conversation began in reaction to the previous night's GOP presidential debate

Howard Stern: Rick Perry's a real anti-science guy, kinda like George Bush, he's like, ya know, (putting on a Texas accent), "I don't believe there's global warming and this global warming is ruining our economy, and scientists are a**holes. I believe in God and Jesus." I hate that thinking.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Robin Quivers: Well, he's the guy who called the national prayer conference and prayed for the problems to go away.

Howard: Yeah, that's always good. No, pray that you have some scientists with half a brain. That's how we win wars. That's how we win in the economy. Science—

Robin: What does he think he's driving around in.

Howard: Yeah, right. Well, science—ya know, well, take a look at Apple, the company. I'm a big fan, as you know, I use all their products. Ya know, they didn't get there by praying to Jesus. They got there by good old-fashioned science. They somehow figured—

Robin: Even the fact that he's talking—science got him on the air last night!

Howard: Ya know, Apple somehow figured if you touch a piece of glass you can move things around, and whoa. That's science, and that's how you build industry, and that's how you build a company. Listen, you talk about science…(Digression about a sci-fi TV series)

Robin: But Howard, if he [Perry] wanted to turn his back on science, he'd have to go back to the Dark Ages. He'd have to turn off his lights—

Howard: (Sarcastically) No, we don't need science.

Robin: He'd have to do, he'd become Amish. He'd have to get back into a horse and buggy.

Howard: I believe in science. I'm the candidate that believes in science.

Robin: But all these people are using science and technology all the time while they say, "Oh, it's no good."

Howard: That's right. Well, listen. So far I gotta hear some—

Robin: He doesn't believe in global warming, but what has he invented? What has he figured out?

Howard: He invented how to keep his hair in place even under the most crucial and taxing situations.

Robin: He didn't even figure that out, he just used a can somebody else created.

Howard: Oh. That's true. That is true. He didn't even figure that out.

Steve Mirsky was the winner of a Twist contest in 1962, for which he received three crayons and three pieces of construction paper. It remains his most prestigious award.

More by Steve Mirsky

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe