tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/science-and-politics-34292/articlesScience and politics – The Conversation2021-05-26T12:14:20Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1604352021-05-26T12:14:20Z2021-05-26T12:14:20ZPoliticized science drove lunar exploration and Stalinist pseudoscience – but polarized scientific views are worse than ever<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402712/original/file-20210525-21-16tsxfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=188%2C60%2C4833%2C2928&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Trump frequently and loudly disagreed with scientists. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BidenScienceIntegrity/8279681623b04fcca21919bff0b1a583/photo?Query=trump%20AND%20science&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=301&currentItemNo=1">AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last year one of my students in a history of science class commented that “no one knows which doctors to trust because they are politicizing the pandemic, just like politicians are.” The interactions between science and politics are now so complex, so numerous and often so opaque that, as my student noted, it’s not clear anymore whom to trust.</p>
<p>People often assume that the objectivity of science requires it to be <a href="https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/macroscope/news-flash-science-has-always-been-political">isolated</a> from governmental politics. However, scientists have <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/scientific-journals-are-denouncing-trump-thats-normal/">always gotten involved in politics</a> as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/28/theres-no-such-thing-just-following-the-science-coronavirus-advice-political">advisers</a> and through shaping public opinion. And science itself – how scientists are <a href="https://blog.oup.com/2015/12/politics-science-funding/">funded</a> and how they choose their research priorities – <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03067-w">is a political affair</a>. </p>
<p>The coronavirus pandemic showed both the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/how-mrna-technology-could-change-world/618431/">benefits</a> and <a href="https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/cdc-pressured-white-house-change-covid-19-testing-guidelines">risks</a> of this relationship – from the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/hydroxychloroquine-trump-coronavirus-drug">controversies</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/health/virus-journals.html">surrounding</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31324-6">hydroxychloroquine</a> to the efforts of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2027405">Operation Warp Speed</a> allowing researchers to develop vaccines <a href="https://theconversation.com/less-than-a-year-to-develop-a-covid-vaccine-heres-why-you-shouldnt-be-alarmed-150414">in less than a year</a>. </p>
<p>In this context, it is understandable that many people began to doubt whether they should trust science at all. As a <a href="https://histsci.fas.harvard.edu/people/liv-grjebine">historian of science</a>, I know that the question is not whether science and politics ought to be involved – they are already. Rather, it is important for people to understand how this relationship can produce either good or bad outcomes for scientific progress and society. </p>
<h2>The historical relationship of science and politics</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402714/original/file-20210525-23-10p48sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A replica of Sputnik 1 that looks like a silver ball with four long metal lines trailing behind." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402714/original/file-20210525-23-10p48sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402714/original/file-20210525-23-10p48sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402714/original/file-20210525-23-10p48sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402714/original/file-20210525-23-10p48sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402714/original/file-20210525-23-10p48sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402714/original/file-20210525-23-10p48sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402714/original/file-20210525-23-10p48sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sputnik, the first human-made object in space and a model of which is seen here, was launched by the Soviet Union and marked the beginning of the space race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sputnik_asm.jpg#/media/File:Sputnik_asm.jpg">NSSDC/NASA/WikimediaCommons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Historically, political needs have acted as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/466922a">key scientific accelerators</a> but have also at times <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/139185b0">stifled scientific progress</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://audrajwolfe.com/freedoms-laboratory/">Geopolitical objectives</a> drive a large part of scientific research. For example, the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/index.html">Apollo space program from 1961 to 1972</a> was <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Moonglow-Political-History-Project/dp/1541699874">driven</a> more by the competition between superpowers in the Cold War than by science. In this case, government’s funding contributed to scientific progress.</p>
<p>In contrast, in the early days of the Soviet Union, the government’s involvement in biology had a stifling effect on science. <a href="https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ms/2005-v21-n2-ms870/010555ar/">Trofim Lysenko</a> was a biologist under Stalin who denounced modern genetics. As he became head of top <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASKhNIL">scientific institutions</a>, his opponents were arrested or executed. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-tragic-story-of-soviet-genetics-shows-the-folly-of-political-meddling-in-science-72580">Lysenkoism</a> – despite being dead wrong – became the accepted orthodoxy in the academies and universities of communist Europe until the mid-1960s.</p>
<p>As the Lysenko story demonstrates, when political powers decide the questions that scientists should work on – and, more importantly, what kind of answers science should find – it can harm both scientific progress and society.</p>
<h2>Two political parties, two scientific realities</h2>
<p>The relationship between science and politics has always been dynamic, but the rise of social media has changed it in an important way. Because it’s more difficult to discern between <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054">true and false content</a> online, it’s now easier than ever before to spread politically motivated <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/28/scientists-fought-coronavirus-now-they-face-the-battle-against-disinformation">fake news</a>. </p>
<p>In the U.S., social media has massively accelerated a long–growing political divide in scientific trust. Starting with <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-04-09/op-ed-trumps-coronavirus-failures-thank-ronald-reagan">Ronald Reagan</a>, <a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/chris-mooney/the-republican-war-on-science/9780465003860/">Republican leaders</a> have turned science into a partisan field. The ideology of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government#:%7E:text=In%20political%20philosophy%2C%20limited%20government,in%20the%20history%20of%20liberalism">limited government</a> is one of the main reasons for this attitude. Republican lawmakers often <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/republican-convention-ignored-climate-threat-but-americans-attitudes-are-shifting/">ignore environmental issues</a> despite scientific consensus on the causes and dangerous effects these issues lead to.</p>
<p>President Trump brought the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/us/politics/trump-biden-climate-change-fires.html">suspicion of science</a> to another level by treating science as essentially just another political opinion. He argued that scientists and institutions who contradicted his views were motivated by their <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/us/politics/caputo-virus.html">political agendas</a> – and, by extension, that the science itself <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02800-9">was false</a>. By contrast, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00184-y">President Biden</a> has put <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/biden-science-tracker">science</a> at the top of his <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/science/biden-science-cabinet.html">priorities</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402715/original/file-20210525-13-1jp23gp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A blue donkey and a red elephant standing on either side of model of the coronavirus." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402715/original/file-20210525-13-1jp23gp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402715/original/file-20210525-13-1jp23gp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402715/original/file-20210525-13-1jp23gp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402715/original/file-20210525-13-1jp23gp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402715/original/file-20210525-13-1jp23gp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402715/original/file-20210525-13-1jp23gp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402715/original/file-20210525-13-1jp23gp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The pandemic highlighted just how differently Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. view science.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/covid-19-politics-royalty-free-image/1217361206?adppopup=true">OsakaWayne Studios/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As a result, the divide between scientific and anti-scientific positions – at least in the U.S. – is now often <a href="https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/10/what-caused-the-u-s-anti-science-trend/">partisan</a>. People of different political views, even when they are educated, are sometimes not able to agree on facts. For instance, among U.S. citizens with a high level of scientific knowledge, 89% of Democrats say that human activity contributes a great deal to climate change, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/21/how-americans-see-climate-change-and-the-environment-in-7-charts/">as compared with only 17% of Republicans</a>. Democrats are not immune to this either, as seen by the <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/democrats-push-gmo-label-mandate-398279235636">strong Democratic support</a> for labeling genetically modified foods. This is despite <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/135280/download">scientific consensus on the safety of these foods</a>. But overall, Republicans tend to be much more <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211010101">anti-science</a> than Democrats.</p>
<p>The pandemic has shown the risks of this political divide. People who identify as Republican are much more likely to be resistant to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/politics/coronavirus-masks.html">mask-wearing</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/27/partisan-divide-coronavirus-vaccinations-is-widening/">vaccination</a>.</p>
<p>Disagreements in science are necessary for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/484164a">scientific progress</a>. But if each party has its own definition of science, scientific truths become a matter of opinion rather than objective facts of how the world works.</p>
<h2>Where is the relationship going?</h2>
<p>Because trust in science was so <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02800-9">degraded</a> during Trump’s presidency, several <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02852-x">leading peer-reviewed journals</a> endorsed Biden as a presidential candidate. This was perhaps the first time in history that such a <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2020/10/science-nejm-nature-editorials-trump-covid19-response.html">large number</a> of scientific journals and <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/">magazines</a> took clear stances for a U.S. presidential election. </p>
<p>The fact that the acceptance or rejection of science is increasingly determined by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715">political affiliations</a> threatens the autonomy of scientists. Once a theory is <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/lots-scientists-marched-yesterday-five-explain-why-they-didnt">labeled</a> “conservative” or “liberal” it becomes difficult for scientists to challenge it. Thus, some scientists are less prone to question hypotheses for fear of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/542165b">political</a> and <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/26/public-health-officials-bullying-by-antivaxxers-endangers-us/">social</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00937-w">pressures</a>. </p>
<p>In my opinion, science cannot thrive under an administration that <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science">ignores scientific expertise</a> as a whole; but neither can it thrive if scientists are told which political and moral values they must embrace. This could slow down or even prevent the emergence of new scientific hypotheses. Indeed, when scientists align themselves with or against political power, science can easily lose its most important asset: the ability to encourage disagreement and to raise new hypotheses that may go against <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-trust-common-sense-but-we-can-trust-science-53042">common sense</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160435/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>For her postdoctoral research at Harvard, Liv Grjebine received an Arthur Sachs Fellowship.
</span></em></p>Politics always influences what questions scientists ask. Their intertwined relationship becomes a problem when politics dictates what answers science is allowed to find.Liv Grjebine, Postdoctoral Fellow in History of Science, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1501562020-11-18T18:53:51Z2020-11-18T18:53:51ZAs Australia’s chief scientist, Alan Finkel brought more science into government. His successor Cathy Foley will continue the job<p>Australia’s chief scientist, Alan Finkel, will bring his five-year stint in the role to a close at the end of 2020. His successor will be Cathy Foley, a physicist and current chief scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the national government research agency.</p>
<p>What legacy will Finkel leave behind? If there’s a defining theme to his time as chief scientist, it must surely be how he has drawn science and evidence more deeply into government policy-making. Among his many achievements in this vein, two key examples leap out.</p>
<h2>Bringing scientists to public service</h2>
<p>The first is the <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/australian-science-policy-fellowship-program">Australian Science Policy Fellowship</a> pilot program. Based on a <a href="https://www.aaas.org/programs/science-technology-policy-fellowships">hugely successful US scheme</a> run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, this program recruits brilliant professionals from scientific, technical, engineering and mathematical (STEM) fields and places them in the federal public service. Now in its third successful year, the scheme has been embraced by 10 Commonwealth government departments.</p>
<p>The embedded scientists, technology experts, engineers and mathematicians not only bring their specific expertise into public service careers. They also bring the broad analytical skill set that is a hallmark of a high-quality STEM education. In STEM, you’re taught to question timeworn assumptions, pull things apart to understand how they really work, look at problems from fresh angles, and strive to innovate and improve things.</p>
<p>The program is a defining legacy for Finkel, who is himself an engineer by training, an entrepreneur by instinct, and a <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/about/biography-2#:%7E:text=Dr%20Finkel%20has%20an%20extensive,at%20the%20Australian%20National%20University.">cross-disciplinary STEM leader by evolution</a>.</p>
<h2>Connecting government with research and expertise</h2>
<p>The second example hails from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As chief scientist, Finkel found himself fielding requests from government ministers for the latest expert scientific evidence about the coronavirus and the effects of the outbreak.</p>
<p>With a huge volume of research being undertaken at record speed, this was no small task. Finkel looked to leverage the collective brains trust of our nation’s learned academies and peak bodies, such as Science & Technology Australia (STA), to reach deep into our nation’s STEM workforce. (Disclosure: we are the president and CEO of STA, respectively.)</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bees-pesticides-and-what-are-chief-scientists-for-13844">Bees, pesticides and ... what are chief scientists for?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>He created the <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/RRIF">Rapid Research Information Forum</a>. It handled questions from ministers, swiftly crowd-sourcing leading experts to produce clear and concise guides to the emerging evidence. It is a model for future policy-making, and should be resourced as an ongoing vehicle for expert advice to complement the in-house work of the public service.</p>
<h2>A complex balancing act</h2>
<p>Finkel’s legacy also includes a vast amount of work on energy and education policy, and myriad <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/advice-to-government">reports, reviews and roadmaps</a> to help the government navigate complex challenges by leveraging Australia’s STEM strengths.</p>
<p>He also created the <a href="https://starportal.edu.au/">STARportal</a>, a digital treasure trove of STEM resources for parents and teachers to engage kids in STEM – especially girls. And his office has run campaigns such as <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/summertime-science">Summertime Science</a>, <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/australian-science-superheroes">Science Superheroes</a>, the <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/storytime-pledge">Storytime Pledge</a>, and <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/STEMeverywhere">STEMEverywhere</a> to get the public more involved in STEM.</p>
<p>The chief scientist’s role is a complex balancing act. It demands great intellect, mastery of policy and political engagement, strong management of relationships with the STEM sector, expert media skills and the ability to communicate clearly to the Australian public.</p>
<p>Behind the scenes, the chief scientist is an advocate for science-informed policy, and an independent source of wise counsel to the prime minister and other ministers on science, technology and innovation. But they are also drawn into media and public debates about the role of science in any number of issues, requiring dexterous skill and a strong command of detail, nuance and politics.</p>
<p>Supported by his top-notch staff, Finkel racked up a catalogue of <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2018/02/speech-evidence-and-integrity">luminous speeches</a> in the finest tradition of using formal speechcraft to stake out an agenda. He proposed many big and bold ideas, elegantly articulated with warmth, wit and historical anecdotes aplenty.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/chief-scientists-address-to-the-national-press-club-the-voyage-of-science-and-innovation-55645">Chief Scientist's address to the National Press Club: The voyage of science and innovation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A strong relationship with the prime minister has been one of Finkel’s greatest assets. Scott Morrison’s speech at the award ceremony for the Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science this year carried a special note of personal connection.</p>
<p>As well as thanking the thousands of scientists who kept us safe this year working on everything from vaccines to epidemiological modelling to ventilators and virus transmission, Morrison <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/funding-and-incentives/prime-ministers-prizes-for-science">paid tribute to Finkel</a>, noting his public service was far from over.</p>
<h2>Stronger collaboration, more inspiration</h2>
<p>Finkel’s successor will be physicist <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/09/cathy-foley-appointed-australias-next-chief-scientist">Cathy Foley</a>. She is currently chief scientist for Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO, where she has spent 36 years of her impressive career. </p>
<p>We can expect Foley to combine Finkel’s instincts for strong public engagement with the mastery of public service machinery that Finkel’s predecessor Ian Chubb displayed deftly in the role.</p>
<p>Foley is also impeccably connected across the STEM sector. She’s a former president and policy committee chair of STA, a fellow of two learned academies – the Academy of Technology and Engineering and the Australian Academy of Science – and a generous mentor to many young scientists and women in STEM through STA’s <a href="https://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/what-we-do/superstars-of-stem/">Superstars of STEM</a> program.</p>
<p>What will her priorities be? Morrison has noted he would like her to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKkYa8XpZ5M">drive stronger collaboration</a> between industry and the science and research community to create jobs for the COVID-19 recovery and beyond.</p>
<p>Federal Science Minister Karen Andrews proposed Foley for the job and is herself a longstanding champion of women in STEM. Andrews said the new chief scientist would help Australia’s manufacturing sector leverage science and technology to strengthen our sovereign capabilities.</p>
<p>For her part, Foley has stated a strong desire to help the government draw on expert scientific advice, serve the nation, and inspire more young people – especially girls – into STEM.</p>
<p>She’s already off to an astute start – turning up at the media call to announce her appointment with gifts for Morrison’s two daughters <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKkYa8XpZ5M">to inspire in them an even deeper love of science</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-let-stem-skills-become-a-casualty-of-covid-19-143752">We can’t let STEM skills become a casualty of COVID-19</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150156/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Misha Schubert is the CEO of Science & Technology Australia and a visiting fellow at the Centre for Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeremy Brownlie has received funding from the Australian Research Council & the Ministry for Primary Industries NZ. He is president of Science & Technology Australia.</span></em></p>Outgoing Chief Scientist Alan Finkel leaves a legacy of closer ties between policy makers and scientific experts.Misha Schubert, Visiting Fellow at the National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University, Australian National UniversityJeremy Brownlie, Deputy Head, School of Environment and Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1012332018-08-17T10:15:15Z2018-08-17T10:15:15ZDr. Droegemeier goes to Washington? What could happen when a respected scientist joins Trump’s White House<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231959/original/file-20180814-2912-g07yc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's a political job, not a scientific one.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/slack12/4551210288">slack12</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Leaders of the scientific community – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/493007a">most of whom</a> <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/lab_politics.html">are also Democrats</a> – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau9602">voiced</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/science/trump-droegemeier-science-adviser.html">relief</a> when the Trump administration <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/three-nominations-sent-senate-today-4/">nominated</a> Kelvin Droegemeier to direct the White House Office of Science and Technology last August. Four months later, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00015-1">Droegemeier has been confirmed</a> by the Senate, and he can finally step <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/">into a position</a> that has been <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2018/08/10/ostp-droegemeier-health-research/">leaderless since Trump assumed office</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231960/original/file-20180814-2921-1x2qdqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231960/original/file-20180814-2921-1x2qdqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231960/original/file-20180814-2921-1x2qdqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=791&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231960/original/file-20180814-2921-1x2qdqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=791&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231960/original/file-20180814-2921-1x2qdqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=791&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231960/original/file-20180814-2921-1x2qdqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=994&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231960/original/file-20180814-2921-1x2qdqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=994&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231960/original/file-20180814-2921-1x2qdqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=994&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kelvin Droegemeier has a fine line to walk.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Fallin-Charitable-Kick-Off/18722ad967194ccabce9ed95fede292b/2/0">AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Droegemeier, a <a href="https://www.aip.org/fyi/2018/trump-picks-meteorologist-kelvin-droegemeier-lead-white-house-science-office">well-respected meteorologist</a> specializing in severe weather such as thunderstorms, has also served <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/members/current_members/droegemeier.jsp">on the advisory board of the U.S. National Science Foundation</a>. He will bring a <a href="https://vpr-norman.ou.edu/users/kelvin-droegemeier">mainstream scientific voice</a> into an administration that is often portrayed as somewhere between apathetic and <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.355.6331.1246">hostile about matters relating to science</a>.</p>
<p>But those who expect Droegemeier to provide any sort of counterweight to administration policies will likely be disappointed. The recent departures of <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-mattis-resignation-letter-quoting-lincoln-signs-off-as-secretary-of-defense/">Defense Secretary James Mattis</a> and <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-john-kelly-exit-interview-20181230-story.html">White House Chief of Staff John Kelly</a> tell the tale, yet again, of the fate of those who push back against this president, however tough-minded they may be. Perhaps more importantly, a historical perspective on presidential science advising shows that the advisers’ effectiveness is determined not by how much they know, but by how closely they are in step with the political priorities of the administration they serve.</p>
<h2>Science advisers are on the team</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/book/american-science-policy-since-world-war-ii/">role of presidential science adviser was formalized</a> in the shadow of the Sputnik launch, when President Eisenhower named MIT president James R. Killian to the newly created post of “special assistant to the president for science and technology” in November 1957. Killian, who in fact was not a scientist but had a mere bachelor’s degree in management, was expected not only to lend expertise to the White House but, according to a <a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1957/11/08/84916858.pdf">New York Times article</a> at the time, to “allay public fears concerning scientific achievements by the Soviet Union.”</p>
<p>Killian helped to oversee a rapid expansion of government investment in science, an agenda that satisfied both his scientific colleagues and the political aims of President Eisenhower. But such alignment of science advice and presidential politics is far from inevitable.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232357/original/file-20180816-2924-19doysf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232357/original/file-20180816-2924-19doysf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232357/original/file-20180816-2924-19doysf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232357/original/file-20180816-2924-19doysf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232357/original/file-20180816-2924-19doysf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232357/original/file-20180816-2924-19doysf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232357/original/file-20180816-2924-19doysf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232357/original/file-20180816-2924-19doysf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jerome Wiesner had a seat at the table (second from left) in the Kennedy White House.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-DC-USA-APHS418409-President-John-F-/85e46e605dd540348b5d879e55b414b7/4/0">AP Photo/Byron Rollins</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Several years later, President Kennedy’s science adviser, Jerome Wiesner, <a href="https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940030132.pdf">advised against</a> sending a man to the moon, counsel that was decisively rejected, with momentous historical consequences. A decade later, President Nixon got so fed up with advice he was getting on missile defense and supersonic transport that in 1973 he <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674666566">eliminated the science adviser post</a>.</p>
<p>With the support of Congress, Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/book/american-science-policy-since-world-war-ii/">reestablished the position of science adviser</a> in 1976, as head of a newly created Office of Science and Technology Policy. But the age of innocence was over, and only the most naïve observers could continue to believe that presidential science advice could somehow be held separate from national politics.</p>
<p>Under President Reagan, science adviser George Keyworth II, a nuclear physicist, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3898-2_5">aggressively advocated</a> for the president’s highly controversial “star wars” missile defense system and notably <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/23/nyregion/reagan-science-adviser-says-press-seeks-to-demolish-us.html">attacked the news media</a> as “a narrow fringe element on the far left of our society” because of alleged bias against administration policies.</p>
<p>More recently, President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, also a physicist, was an <a href="https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/science-adviser-lists-goals-on-climate-energy/">outspoken advocate</a> for the president’s energy and environmental policies. In their times, <a href="http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Way-Out-There-In-the-Blue/Frances-FitzGerald/9780743200233">Keyworth</a> <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2009/01/obamas-political-science-adviser-jonathan-h-adler/">and</a> <a href="https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/">Holdren</a> were both subjected to energetic critique from those in politics and the media who disagreed with the positions that each advanced.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232358/original/file-20180816-2891-r50pd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232358/original/file-20180816-2891-r50pd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232358/original/file-20180816-2891-r50pd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232358/original/file-20180816-2891-r50pd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232358/original/file-20180816-2891-r50pd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232358/original/file-20180816-2891-r50pd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232358/original/file-20180816-2891-r50pd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232358/original/file-20180816-2891-r50pd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">John Marburger (left) knew his job was to back up the president.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Bush-/90b5892a92d4452e8e1259c9f6b7a1a7/35/0">AP Photo/White House, Chris Greenberg</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most notable in this regard, however, was John Marburger, also a physicist, and science adviser to Republican President George W. Bush. Marburger in fact was a Democrat, a respected scientist and university administrator, and unlike Keyworth and Holdren was a low-profile player in White House politics. But <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/30/science/at-the-center-of-the-storm-over-bush-and-science.html">he was skewered</a> by Democrats in Congress and their allies in the scientific community for failing to oppose Bush policies on issues <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3898-2_8">such as stem cell research and climate change</a> – even though he would surely have been fired had he done so.</p>
<p>Science advisers are not apolitical nerds, high-level versions of Bill Nye the Science Guy on tap to answer a president’s questions about why the sky is blue or how a bar-code scanner works. Science advisers are political players on a political team, and above all, Trump’s choice of Droegemeier must be understood in that vein.</p>
<h2>A challenge ahead for nominee</h2>
<p>Yet Droegemeier represents a somewhat bizarre choice. Trump could have chosen a science adviser with expertise relevant to administration policy priorities, such as <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/13/trump-signs-717-billion-defense-bill.html">defense buildup</a>, <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1435/bring-back-manufacturing/">restoring the manufacturing base</a> or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html">undoing environmental regulations</a>. Given his skepticism about climate change, Trump could even have chosen a science adviser with similar views. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.21336">Early rumors suggested</a> he would do just that.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"265895292191248385"}"></div></p>
<p>Instead, in Droegemeier he has selected an expert on weather and climate who seems – although his public statements on the matter are few – to agree with most other climate scientists that human activities are contributing to a changing climate. So Droegemeier comes into his job holding a view that sharply contradicts a conspicuous public position taken by the president. As we have seen, this is not a proven formula for success.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232353/original/file-20180816-2894-n1tqjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232353/original/file-20180816-2894-n1tqjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232353/original/file-20180816-2894-n1tqjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232353/original/file-20180816-2894-n1tqjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232353/original/file-20180816-2894-n1tqjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232353/original/file-20180816-2894-n1tqjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232353/original/file-20180816-2894-n1tqjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232353/original/file-20180816-2894-n1tqjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Perhaps vouching for now NASA Administrator James Bridenstine paid political dividends.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/NASA-New-Orleans/83d16f58bcd94e18b405db1d608b2c54/1/0">AP Photo/Gerald Herbert</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Why did Trump pick Droegemeier, then? For one thing, within the Trump administration he likely has the support of NASA director and fellow Oklahoman Jim Bridenstine, at least in part because Droegemeier supported Bridenstine’s nomination for the NASA directorship by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8749">providing public assurances</a> that Bridenstine was not a climate skeptic. For another, Droegemeier has the <a href="https://www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/inhofe-lankford-applaud-presidential-appointment-of-oklahoman">endorsement</a> of Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a powerful Trump ally <a href="https://wndbooks.wnd.com/the-greatest-hoax-2/">who is a climate skeptic</a>.</p>
<p>So perhaps Droegemeier’s selection was just a matter of smart political triangulation: A man who has the confidence of political leaders of a state where Trump won with <a href="https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/states/oklahoma">more than 65 percent of the vote</a>, and also just happens to have unimpeachable scientific credentials, is a rare political commodity.</p>
<p>Now that he’s confirmed by the Senate, whatever role Droegemeier ends up playing will be one of service to the political agenda of the Trump administration. Given that Democrats have over the past 15 years or more <a href="http://issues.org/25-4/sarewitz-2/">sought to portray themselves</a> as the party of science, Droegemeier will find it difficult to maintain his stellar reputation as a scientist while also advocating policies that Democrats and their allies in the scientific community oppose. He should expect severe political weather for the next few years. Perhaps the most interesting question is whether the fiercest gales will come from the Democrats, now that they are back in charge of the House of Representatives, or from Droegmeier’s unpredictable boss in the White House.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published on Aug. 17, 2018.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101233/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Sarewitz has received funding from the US National Science Foundation to study the politics of science and technology policy. He is a registered Democrat and has contributed to Democratic candidates at the local, state, and national levels.</span></em></p>Almost two years in, Trump finally has a science adviser in position. History demonstrates that the role is at least as political as it is scientific.Daniel Sarewitz, Professor of Science and Society, Co-Director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/883662017-12-21T11:20:16Z2017-12-21T11:20:16ZH.G. Wells vs. George Orwell: Their debate whether science is humanity’s best hope continues today<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200089/original/file-20171220-5004-1bmzit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=50%2C136%2C1341%2C1070&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'Man Combating Ignorance' – what's science's role?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/uicdigital/4387519894">Century of Progress Records, 1927-1952, University of Illinois at Chicago Library</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the midst of contemporary science’s stunning discoveries and innovations – for example, 2017 alone brought the editing of a <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/first-us-team-gene-edit-human-embryos-revealed">human embryo’s genes</a>, the location of an <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39000936">eighth continent under the ocean</a> and the ability to <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/03/technology/future/spacex-launch-dragon-reuse-crs-11-launch/index.html">reuse a spacecraft’s rocket boosters</a> – it’s easy to forget that there’s an ongoing debate over science’s capacity to save humankind. Seventy-five years ago, two of the best-known literary figures of the 20th century, H.G. Wells and George Orwell, carried on a lively exchange over this very issue. </p>
<p>Wells, one of the founders of science fiction, was a staunch believer in science’s potential. Orwell, on the other hand, cast a much more skeptical eye on science, pointing to its limitations as a guide to human affairs. </p>
<p>Though Wells and Orwell were debating in the era of Nazism, many of their arguments reverberate today in contemporary debates over science and policy. For example, in 2013, biologist <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eob371ZgGoY">Richard Dawkins</a> justified confidence in science in these terms: “Science works. Planes fly. Cars drive. Computers compute. If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. It works….” On the other hand, Nobel laureate <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Limits_of_Science.html?id=o8iSP7DmHT8C">Peter Medawar</a> famously argued that there are many important questions that science cannot answer, such as, “What is the purpose of life?” and “To what uses should scientific knowledge be put?” </p>
<p>Confronting challenges such as climate change and feeding the 2 billion people who lack a reliable source of food, it might be natural to regard science as humanity’s only hope. But expecting from science what it cannot deliver is just as hazardous as failing to acknowledge its great potential.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200090/original/file-20171220-4951-1v7y0l7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200090/original/file-20171220-4951-1v7y0l7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200090/original/file-20171220-4951-1v7y0l7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200090/original/file-20171220-4951-1v7y0l7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200090/original/file-20171220-4951-1v7y0l7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200090/original/file-20171220-4951-1v7y0l7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200090/original/file-20171220-4951-1v7y0l7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200090/original/file-20171220-4951-1v7y0l7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">H.G. Wells’ fantastical fiction embodied scientific optimism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:H._G._Wells,_c.1890.jpg">Frederick Hollyer</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Wells: Full faith in science</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-36831?rskey=6DO1DC&result=1">Herbert George Wells</a> was born in Kent, England, in 1866. After a childhood accident left him bedridden, he discovered a love of reading. He studied and taught science under biologist <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/thuxley.html">Thomas Huxley</a>, eventually receiving a biology degree. To supplement his income, he worked as a freelance journalist, publishing his first book, “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine">The Time Machine</a>,” in 1895.</p>
<p>Today Wells, who died in 1946, is best known as a science fiction writer. Among his most prominent works are “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/188556/the-island-of-dr-moreau-by-hg-wells/9780375760969">The Island of Doctor Moreau</a>,” “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/306808/the-invisible-man-by-hg-wells/9780451531674">The Invisible Man</a>” and “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/188559/the-war-of-the-worlds-by-hg-wells/9781590171585/">The War of the Worlds</a>.” In his own day, however, Wells was better known as a public intellectual with progressive political views and high hopes for science.</p>
<p>Wells foresaw many of the landmarks of 20th-century scientific progress, including airplanes, space travel and the atomic bomb. In “<a href="https://archive.org/stream/discoveryoffutur00welliala/discoveryoffutur00welliala_djvu.txt">The Discovery of the Future</a>,” he lamented “the blinding power of the past upon our minds,” and argued that educators should replace the classics with science, producing leaders who could foretell history as they predict the phases of the moon.</p>
<p>Wells’ enthusiasm for science had political implications. Having contemplated in his novels the self-destruction of mankind, Wells believed that humanity’s best hope lay in the creation of a single world government overseen by scientists and engineers. Human beings, he argued, need to set aside religion and nationalism and put their faith in the power of scientifically trained, rational experts.</p>
<h2>Orwell: Skeptical of the utopian impulse</h2>
<p>Nearly four decades after Wells, <a href="http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-31915?rskey=rbWoZI&result=1">George Orwell</a> was born in 1903 to a British civil servant in India. He grew up in England a sickly child, but loved writing from an early age. Educated at Eton, he lacked the resources to continue his studies and became a policeman in Burma for five years.</p>
<p>After returning to England, he began a prolific career as a journalist. His writings explored such themes as the lives of the working poor and the dark side of colonialism, and he also produced fine literary criticism. It was near the end of his life that Orwell published the two works for which he is best known, “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm">Animal Farm</a>” and “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four">Nineteen Eighty-Four</a>.”</p>
<p>Today Orwell is widely regarded as one of the <a href="https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/the-dominant-writer-of-the-20th-century/">greatest writers</a> of the 20th century. The word Orwellian has entered the language to describe totalitarian governments that use surveillance, misinformation and propaganda to manipulate popular understanding. Orwell also introduced such terms as doublethink, thought police and big brother.</p>
<p>Orwell operated with less lofty ambitions for mankind than did Wells. In reflecting on the utopian impulse, he wrote in “<a href="http://orwell.ru/library/articles/socialists/english/e_fun">Why Socialists Don’t Believe in Fun</a>” that creators of utopias resemble “the man who has a toothache, and therefore thinks that happiness consists in not having a toothache…. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness.”</p>
<h2>Science isn’t enough</h2>
<p>Orwell was not bashful about criticizing the scientific and political views of his friend Wells. In “<a href="http://orwell.ru/library/articles/science/english/e_scien">What is Science?</a>” he described Wells’ enthusiasm for scientific education as misplaced, in part because it rested on the assumption that the young should be taught more about radioactivity or the stars, rather than how to “think more exactly.”</p>
<p>Orwell also rejected Wells’ notion that scientific training rendered a person’s approach to all subjects more intelligent than someone who lacked it. Such widely held views, Orwell argued, led naturally to the assumption that the world would be a better place, if only “the scientists were in control of it,” a notion he roundly rejected.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200101/original/file-20171220-4973-1co67d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200101/original/file-20171220-4973-1co67d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200101/original/file-20171220-4973-1co67d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200101/original/file-20171220-4973-1co67d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200101/original/file-20171220-4973-1co67d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200101/original/file-20171220-4973-1co67d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200101/original/file-20171220-4973-1co67d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200101/original/file-20171220-4973-1co67d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientific expertise didn’t preclude some scientists from being swept up in Nazi fervor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H12148,_N%C3%BCrnberg,_Reichsparteitag.jpg">German Federal Archive</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Orwell pointed to the fact that the German scientific community had mounted very little resistance to Hitler and produced plenty of gifted men to research synthetic oil, rockets and the atomic bomb. “Without them,” wrote Orwell, “the German war machine could never have been built up.” Even more damning, he argued, many such scientists swallowed the “monstrosity of ‘racial science.’”</p>
<p>Orwell believed that scientific education should not focus on particular disciplines such as physics, chemistry, and biology – not, in other words, on facts. Instead it should focus on implanting “a rational, skeptical, and experimental habit of mind.” And instead of merely scientifically educating the masses, we should remember that “scientists themselves would benefit by a little education” in the areas of “history or literature or the arts.”</p>
<p>Orwell is even more critical of science’s role in politics. In “<a href="http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/wells/english/e_whws">Wells, Hitler, and the World State</a>,” Orwell treats calls for a single world government as hopelessly utopian, in large part because “not one of the five great military powers would think of submitting to such a thing.” Though sensible men have held such views for decades, they have “no power, and no disposition to sacrifice themselves.”</p>
<p>Far from damning nationalism, Orwell praises it to at least this extent: “What has kept England on its feet this past year” but the “atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners?” The energy that actually shapes the world, writes Orwell, springs from emotions that “intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms.”</p>
<h2>Science’s promise and limitations: the debate continues</h2>
<p>The contrast between these two towering figures of 20th-century literature should not be overdrawn. While championing science, Wells recognized that scientific progress could also lead to human misery. He foresaw the development of immense military destructive power in the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33365776">atomic bomb</a>, as well as the creation of technologies that would undermine privacy.</p>
<p>For his part, Orwell recognized that without scientific research and technological innovation, the British could not maintain parity with Germany’s rapidly developing military. He did not for a second think that his countrymen should revert to the use of shovels and pitchforks as weapons of war, and he called for adult males to own and know how to use a <a href="http://www.orwelltoday.com/riflequote.jpg">rifle</a>.</p>
<p>Yet Wells’ and Orwell’s views on science’s potential did in the end contrast sharply. As Wells saw it, scientific habits of mind were precisely what was needed to rationalize the political order of the world. For Orwell, by contrast, purely scientific ways of thinking left human beings vulnerable to deception and manipulation, sowing seeds of totalitarianism. There is much to hope for from science, but a truly reasonable outlook places equal emphasis on science’s limitations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88366/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Gunderman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There’s no shortage of problems facing humanity. Science’s role in how to tackle them has long been debated – including memorably by two of the 20th century’s greatest literary figures.Richard Gunderman, Chancellor's Professor of Medicine, Liberal Arts, and Philanthropy, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/791012017-06-13T02:55:47Z2017-06-13T02:55:47ZWhen politicians cherry-pick data and disregard facts, what should we academics do?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173427/original/file-20170612-10208-qr82w3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Advocating for facts and evidence at the March for Science in California earlier this year.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/matthewalmonroth/33822848630/">Matthew Roth/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When politicians distort science, academics and scientists tend to watch in shock <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963662511418743">from the sidelines</a> rather than speak out. But in an age of “fake news” and “alternative facts,” we need to step into the breach and inject scientific literacy into the political discourse. </p>
<p>Nowhere is this obligation more vivid than the debate over climate change. Contrary to the consensus of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2017/01/17/joint-statements-on-climate-change-from-national-academies-of-science-around-the-world/">scientific agencies</a> worldwide, the president has called climate change a “<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/what-has-trump-said-about-global-warming-quotes-climate-change-paris-agreement-618898">hoax</a>” (though his position may be <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/03/politics/nikki-haley-donald-trump-climate-change-cnntv/index.html">shifting</a>), while his EPA administrator has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/09/epa-scott-pruitt-carbon-dioxide-global-warming-climate-change">denied even the most basic link to carbon dioxide as a cause</a>. </p>
<p>It’s another sign that we, as a society, are drifting away from the use of scientific reasoning to inform public policy. And the outcome is clear: a misinformed voting public and the passage of policies to benefit special interests. </p>
<h2>Using data to meet predetermined goals</h2>
<p>We saw this dynamic at work when President Trump announced his intention to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-decision-to-leave-paris-accord-hurts-the-us-and-the-world-78707">withdraw from the Paris Agreement</a> on climate change. In making his case, he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord">presented</a> an ominous economic future: “2.7 million lost jobs by 2025,” and industries devastated by 2040: “Paper – down 12 percent. Cement – down 23 percent. Iron and steel – down 38 percent. Coal – and I happen to love the coal miners – down 86 percent. Natural gas – down 31 percent.”</p>
<p>These data were drawn from a <a href="http://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2017/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf">study</a> – one study! – funded by the <a href="http://accf.org/">American Council for Capital Formation</a>, a pro-business lobbying group, and conducted by <a href="http://www.nera.com/about.html">National Economic Research Associates</a> (NERA), a consulting firm for industrial clients often opposed to environmental regulations. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/trump-paris-climate-change-agreement.html?ref=opinion">New York Times</a> Editorial Board called the data “nonsense” and “a cornucopia of dystopian, dishonest and discredited data based on numbers from industry-friendly sources.”</p>
<p>A closer look at the study reveals how it was misused and distorted to make the president’s case. The NERA study modeled five different scenarios, but President Trump cited only one. It assumed <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/fact-checking-president-trumps-claims-on-the-paris-climate-change-deal/?utm_term=.1ea9b7476f94">limited technological development</a> with regard to clean technologies that could reduce the costs of low-carbon energy over the long term. Also, the president’s use of the study’s cost projections did not put them in the context of a larger economy in 2040. </p>
<p>Indeed, the study looked only at specific industrial sectors and not the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/regulations-jobs/513563/">economy as a whole</a> and it did not consider where other sectors of the economy might benefit by policies to reduce greenhouse gases. It also didn’t note that some industries, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.cfm">including coal mining</a>, face decline for market reasons that go beyond climate policy. And lastly, it did not consider the costs of <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v527/n7577/full/nature15725.html">inaction</a> to climate change as compared to action.</p>
<p>Since the president’s speech, NERA has issued a <a href="http://www.nera.com/news-events/press-releases/2017/nera-economic-consultings-study-of-us-emissions-reduction-polici.html">statement</a> that the “study was not a cost-benefit analysis of the Paris Agreement and does not purport to be one” and that “use of results from this analysis as estimates of the impact of the Paris Agreement alone mischaracterizes the purpose of NERA’s analysis.” </p>
<p>In short, the use of their analysis was misleading. And yet, there it is, standing as justification to the American public for the historic U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. </p>
<p>That American public, <a href="https://phys.org/news/2009-03-american-adults-flunk-basic-science.html">surveys</a> show, is often uninformed about science and the scientific process. And so, academic scholars have an important role to play standing up for scientific integrity by speaking out when it is threatened. </p>
<p>Just this past winter, the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/democrats-condemn-climate-change-skeptics-for-targeting-teachers/">sent their book</a> “Why Scientists Disagree about Climate Change” to 25,000 K-12 science teachers for inclusion in their curriculum. Their goal is to reach 200,000. </p>
<p>This represents a threat that requires a response from all who value rigorous evidence-based decision-making: professors, research scientists, college deans, university presidents, journal editors, heads of professional societies, donors, employers, professionals and the general public.</p>
<h2>Standing up for scientific integrity</h2>
<p>I have long advocated for <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/the-balancing-act-public-engagement-for-the-academic-scholar-291">greater public engagement</a> from academics. But how do we bring scientific literacy to the realm of policy-making? We begin by being authentic in local, regional and global arenas. Surveys in both <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/how-americans-communicate-about-global-warming-april-2013/">2013</a> and <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/?est=discuss&type=diff&geo=county">2016</a> show that only one in three Americans discusses global warming with friends or family. If that number is to ever approach 100 percent, academic scholars must lead the way, whether that be in small gatherings, town hall meetings, local schools, newspaper editorials and publications (like <a href="https://theconversation.com/us">The Conversation</a>), <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/science/march-for-science.html?_r=0">public protests</a>, government testimony and of course the classroom. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Computer scientist Patrick Madden is running for Congress because ‘in Washington, there’s an all out attack on the very idea of facts, and on anyone who tells the truth.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.maddenforcongress.com/why-im-running/">Patrick Madden for Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the extreme, some, like <a href="http://www.ozy.com/politics-and-power/professors-are-lining-up-to-challenge-trump-but-will-it-work/78640">Dr. Patrick Madden,</a> have decided to <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/thanks-to-trump-scientists-are-planning-to-run-for-office/514229/">run for office</a>. </p>
<p>We cannot wait until our particular science is under threat, as some <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/06/02/mit-researchers-trump-misstated-our-data/iqMIeh72HKWkf6YLgI9aGO/story.html">MIT scientists</a> had to do when President Trump misused their climate data in his speech as well. We must stand up for all science and the integrity of the scientific process now. </p>
<h2>Responding when science’s credibility is challenged</h2>
<p>This is not comfortable terrain. Science and scientists have <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_American_Life">long been mistrusted</a> by a segment of American society, newly emboldened to attack its credibility on several fronts. Consider just these five and how to respond.</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>It is not the place for scientists to become political.</strong> But any research that asks people to change their beliefs or their actions is, by definition, political. You can try to remain outside the fray, but in my view, that is the same as remaining irrelevant.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>There are mistakes in scientific research, so scientists should not be trusted.</strong> Any good scientist knows you do not throw out an entire model when a flaw is found. Scientific research is corrected when subsequent studies challenge prior work, and fatally flawed studies are <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/stap-retracted-1.15488">retracted</a>.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Scientists are arrogant and don’t want to listen.</strong> One should not conflate the act of standing up for a conclusion that is based on rigorous scientific analysis with arrogance. It is an <a href="http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/neil_degrasse_tyson_-_communicating_science">issue of tone</a>, not of content.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Academics are liberal and therefore biased.</strong> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&">Some studies</a> show that academia in general is a left-leaning institution, and we can do better at bringing a diversity of viewpoints to campus. But, that does not mean that scientific research is biased. The peer review process is established to remove weak reasoning and selection biases, creating an environment where <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/27/research-confirms-professors-lean-left-questions-assumptions-about-what-means">conservative professors thrive</a> as much as liberal.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Scientists use fossil fuels too, so they are not serious.</strong> Scientists should be <a href="https://theconversation.com/eco-authenticity-advocating-for-a-low-carbon-world-while-living-a-high-carbon-lifestyle-56893">authentic</a> and reduce their carbon footprint. But the solutions to climate change require broad-scale shifts in our industrial systems and culture, and this will happen only by continuing our research, teaching and engagement, all of which require energy.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The corruption of science is an existential threat to both <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-academics-are-losing-relevance-in-society-and-how-to-stop-it-64579">the academy</a> and democratic society, neither of which can function on half-truths and fictions that distort our sense of the real problems we face and the solutions we should enact. If scientists do not step up to change our course toward a scientifically illiterate public, who will? If we don’t do it now, then when?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79101/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew J. Hoffman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scientists typically stay out of public policy debates, but an academic makes the case that they need to push back against politicians who distort research.Andrew J. Hoffman, Holcim (US) Professor at the Ross School of Business and Education Director at the Graham Sustainability Institute, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/757632017-04-05T18:01:15Z2017-04-05T18:01:15ZYes, we can do ‘sound’ climate science even though it’s projecting the future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164175/original/image-20170405-28300-4ynffv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nobody can observe events in the future so to study climate change, scientists build detailed models and use powerful supercomputers to simulate conditions, such as the global water vapor levels seen here, and to understand how rising greenhouse gas levels will change Earth's systems.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/imagegallery%3A1798">NCAR/UCAR</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Increasingly in the current U.S. administration and Congress, questions have been raised about the use of proper scientific methods and accusations have been made about using flawed approaches. </p>
<p>This is especially the case with regard to climate science, as evidenced by the hearing of the <a href="https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and?utm_medium=email&utm_source=FYI&dm_i=1ZJN,4UV91,MG6EQC,ICZMX,1">House Committee on Science, Space and Technology</a>, chaired by Lamar Smith, on March 29, 2017. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.aip.org/fyi/2017/house-science-committee-chairman-questions-credibility-climate-science">reported</a> by William Thomas, a senior policy analyst at the American Institute of Physics, the hearing “represented the latest in a string of committee activities revolving around methodological legitimacy in scientific research. Notably, Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) used the occasion to further articulate his conception of what constitutes ‘sound science.’ The hearing also explored in some detail the question of whether entire fields of research can become corrupted, thus necessitating congressional attention.” </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163975/original/image-20170405-5739-15egyif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163975/original/image-20170405-5739-15egyif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163975/original/image-20170405-5739-15egyif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163975/original/image-20170405-5739-15egyif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163975/original/image-20170405-5739-15egyif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163975/original/image-20170405-5739-15egyif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=768&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163975/original/image-20170405-5739-15egyif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=768&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163975/original/image-20170405-5739-15egyif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=768&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chairman of the House Science Committee Lamar Smith accused many climate scientists of using ‘exaggerations, personal agendas and questionable predictions [rather] than on the scientific method.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/25847190566/in/photolist-beRHBV-beRHsT-beRHRx-RShWcY-diDtfA-JszfPX-RUEyzT-T1wigB-bzr4Sc-dUbudY-2eXt51-bf1uNk-diDt8S-ERqwAU-zeBun1-BCXsb2-yY9fCZ-Fo2BfE-tLxRDU-KCmGkc-beRHNz-beRHD4-beRHzg-beRHyi-beRHwi-beRHuZ-beRHHn-beRHx8-beRHEi-beRHAZ-beRHxF-beRHtV-beRHHT-beRHvM-beRHun-beRHSR-aWQhUK-9pNGKC-cSbcys-4AVB6B-dF7Sfx-dFdj1Q-dYvaaZ-Dr1bJ-BmrX2-5QXyP2-94DamD-4Xj5nZ-K5Ts6J-yvqHvM">NASA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Chairman Smith accused climate scientists of straying “outside the principles of the scientific method.” Smith repeated his <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-lays-out-political-strategy-climate-doubters-conference">oft-stated assertion</a> that scientific method hinges on “reproducibility,” which he defined as “a repeated validation of the results.” He also asserted that the demands of scientific verification altogether preclude long-range prediction, saying, “Alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild guesses. The ability to predict far into the future is impossible. Anyone stating what the climate will be in 500 years or even at the end of the century is not credible.”</p>
<p>At the same time, President Trump has been <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/trump-climate-change-executive-order/">dismissive of climate change</a> and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html">said in March</a> that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do…so, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”</p>
<p>The kinds of statements made by Smith, the president and Pruitt are misguided. They show a woeful ignorance about science and how it works, and in particular about climate science. Consequently, they ignore sound advice on how to best plan for the future.</p>
<h2>Why climate scientists use models</h2>
<p>The wonderful thing about science is that it is not simply a matter of opinion but that it is based upon evidence and physical principles, often pulled together in some form of “model.” </p>
<p>In the case of climate science, there is a great deal of data because of the millions of daily observations made mostly for the purposes of weather forecasting. Climate scientists assemble all of the observations, including those made from satellites. They often make adjustments to accommodate known deficiencies and discontinuities, such as those arising from shifts in locations of observing stations or changes in instrumentation, and then analyze the data in various ways. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164130/original/image-20170405-28300-bcrlfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164130/original/image-20170405-28300-bcrlfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164130/original/image-20170405-28300-bcrlfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=676&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164130/original/image-20170405-28300-bcrlfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=676&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164130/original/image-20170405-28300-bcrlfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=676&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164130/original/image-20170405-28300-bcrlfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164130/original/image-20170405-28300-bcrlfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164130/original/image-20170405-28300-bcrlfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Satellites provide one of the main source of data about the Earth’s system, which can be used to forecast weather and project long-range changes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa_goddard/4678389619/in/photolist-88pYeZ-seQBwW-aZCiQF-88tbfw-aZCiCR-7foTFU-9tkvN7-8721aD-88tcFb-87218V-6Czjf2-8mTVAh-CXacwb-jR9gc-rYBjUz-aZCipZ-7foTyN-dkd7Ty-eEM1ZU-aYNPqD-eEM1Bs-aZCiLF-88pXDV-fWLt7Y-9tkvKW-fWLomo-EdkXCm-aZCiJ6-88tenq-aZCiyV-z1u3F-aZCitV-fZVr3Q-7cN6Te-zo1YBo-fWLrxA-aZCifM-aZCidD-8mQMkM-9LEnUS-Fymr58-fZVE2N-aZK3TZ-8cy7hn-nHkpq9-8S8eGU-fWLGeg-fWLmr1-fWLjxx-fWLkgr">NASA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In most cases, these adjustments can be performed very rigorously because of neighboring observations and overlapping observations. For example, sea surface temperatures come from multiple sources, such as ships and drifting buoys, the latter of which have increased over time. While the data are of mixed quality and length, they encompass many variables that can be related physically – temperatures, winds, humidity, rainfall, etc. – and together they tell a very compelling story.</p>
<p>One form of model may be statistical and empirical in nature, such as how often to restock supermarket shelves. This is not the case for climate science. Because we don’t have a physical system to experiment with, climate scientists build a virtual planet Earth in a computer. Computer models are based upon the physical laws of nature represented by mathematical equations that are solved using <a href="http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/T_Nature1997.pdf">numerical methods applied to a three-dimensional grid over the globe</a>. </p>
<p>Modeling the atmosphere and oceans as fluid dynamical systems has become very sophisticated and can be used to simulate the motions and evolution of weather systems. This is done on a daily basis for weather forecasting, which has seen major successes and improved forecasts, as observations have become better and global while computers have become much faster. As models, they may represent imperfect simplified depictions of the real world, but as tools they are extremely valuable.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164172/original/image-20170405-14603-2df7im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164172/original/image-20170405-14603-2df7im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164172/original/image-20170405-14603-2df7im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164172/original/image-20170405-14603-2df7im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164172/original/image-20170405-14603-2df7im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164172/original/image-20170405-14603-2df7im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164172/original/image-20170405-14603-2df7im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164172/original/image-20170405-14603-2df7im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This image represents a single month from a simulation of the 20th century made by the Community Climate System Model at NCAR. It incorporates multiple dynamics of the Earth’s system, including wind directions, ocean surface temperatures and sea ice concentrations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/imagegallery%3A2866">National Center for Atmospheric Research</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To study the climate, these same basic tools are applied but on <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-can-we-predict-the-hottest-year-on-record-when-weather-forecasts-are-so-uncertain-70835">different time scales</a>. Climate models simulate the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9YAzrmeOGI">annual cycle</a>, changes in the distant past, the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm1w_FPosT4">evolving climate over the 20th century</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBHL_7dEpTg">climate variability</a> very realistically. </p>
<p>There are many groups around the world who collaborate to advance the field while competing for the most realistic simulations. Owing to the chaotic nature of the atmospheric circulation (often depicted by the flap of a <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/422809/when-the-butterfly-effect-took-flight/">butterfly’s wings changing the future weather</a>), the detailed day-to-day weather cannot be forecast accurately more than about two weeks into the future. Many repeated computer runs with small perturbations in initial states (forming ensembles) are used to bring out the robust features. This is done even for two-week weather forecasts and is essential for climate simulations. </p>
<p>For climate, this means dealing with the statistics of weather. For instance, just as the weather in every winter is different, the character of winter is quite different than summer; those aspects can be simulated well. Hence the focus is on the average, the character and the variability of weather, rather than the instantaneous values.</p>
<p>This does not imply that we cannot predict anything, even hundreds of years from now. In much the same way as we can predict the orbits of planets around the sun for millions of years, so climate models tell us that ice will melt in a much warmer world and sea level will rise as a consequence. It takes thousands of years for the Earth to come to a new equilibrium climate even if we stop emitting carbon dioxide, and winter will still be colder than summer even in a much warmer world. The reason we can make such predictions is that the laws of physics 500 years from now are the same as today.</p>
<h2>Projections, not predictions</h2>
<p>With climate models as tools, we can carry out “what-if” experiments. What if the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had not increased due to human activities? What if we keep burning fossil fuels and putting more CO2 into the atmosphere? If the climate changes as projected, then what would the impacts be on agriculture and society? If those things happened, then what strategies might there be for coping with the changes? </p>
<p>These are all very legitimate questions for scientists to ask and address. The first set involves the physical climate system. The others involve biological and ecological scientists, and social scientists, and they may involve economists, as happens in a full Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">IPCC</a>) assessment. All of this work is published and subject to peer review – that is, evaluation by other scientists in the field. </p>
<p>The question here is whether our models are similar enough in relevant ways to the real world that we can learn from the models and draw conclusions about the real world. The job of scientists is to find out where this is the case and where it isn’t, and to quantify the uncertainties. For that reason, statements about future climate in IPCC always have a likelihood attached, and numbers have uncertainty ranges.</p>
<p>The models are not perfect and involve approximations. But because of their complexity and sophistication, they are so much better than any “back-of-the envelope” guesses, and the shortcomings and limitations are known. </p>
<p>These models are designed to provide scenarios of the future that can be used for guiding decisions about what policies to follow, such as how to reduce undesirable climate impacts and build resilience, and to plan for the future in the most cost-effective ways. Because human actions themselves are not predictable, these are not predictions, but rather they are called projections and depend on the nature of the “what-if” question.</p>
<h2>Data for all to see</h2>
<p>Based on the points above, the criticism raised in the hearing by the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has no basis: Science using observed data and models is transparent and reproducible. The data are in almost all cases public; the models are as well; and if we run the same code twice on a computer, we get exactly the same answer. </p>
<p>Anyone can check the results, and many more people have in fact scrutinized the IPCC’s assessments and looked at the key conclusions than in other fields. The essential statements made several decades ago still hold, and projections made with early models were remarkably accurate. Recent reviews of past projections for <a href="https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n3/full/nclimate3224.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_climate-sciences">temperature</a>, <a href="https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html">precipitation</a> and <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1788.html">decades-length changes</a> have confirmed earlier model projections. </p>
<p>Notably, there is an element of risk here: When the stakes are high, then even a small probability for massive failure prevents us from doing certain things. Imagine hearing that the airplane you are to fly on has a large crack in the wing. It may fly, but we do not know. Would you board the airplane? We do not need full certainty that the airplane will crash – or in the climate change context, we do not need full certainty that the impacts will be catastrophic – to justify some measures to mitigate the outcome, or find an alternative.</p>
<p>In fact, what we need is very high probability that the airplane will not crash. Using this argument, we should not emit CO2 unless we know for sure that it is not harmful. In complex problems like predicting the climate of the Earth, we will never have complete certainty, nor is it needed.</p>
<p>Accordingly, we have many facts and physical understanding of the Earth’s climate. The role of scientists is to lay out the facts, their interpretation, and the prospects and consequences as best we can. But the decision about what is done with this information is the responsibility of everyone, including and often led by politicians. The failure of Lamar Smith and his ilk to recognize that climate scientists ask legitimate scientific questions, and moreover, that they that they provide very useful information for decision-makers, is a major loss for the public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75763/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Reto Knutti receives funding for research projects from ETH Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation and EU H2020 programs.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin Trenberth does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>People worry Washington is losing respect for science and even the centuries-old scientific method. Two climate scientists explain how science can be done when talking about the future.Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research Reto Knutti, Professor, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ZurichLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/725482017-02-13T01:51:31Z2017-02-13T01:51:31ZWhy politicians think they know better than scientists – and why that’s so dangerous<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156266/original/image-20170209-8637-16avknx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Making a point at a Washington, D.C. protest in January.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenmelkisethian/32487346636/">stephenmelkisethian/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the most unexpected political developments in recent months has been the political awakening of scientists in the United States. </p>
<p>A normally reticent group (at least when it comes to politics), scientists are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/science/donald-trump-scientists-politics.html?emc=eta1&_r=0">speaking out, organizing a major march and planning to run for public office</a>. There is a growing sense that the danger posed by the Trump administration to evidence-based policy, and perhaps science itself, is unprecedented. I share this concern. The Trump administration’s <a href="http://mashable.com/2016/12/18/trump-cabinet-climate-deniers-guide/#6j4GD5uMGmqz">actions</a> and <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on-science-are-shockingly-ignorant/">rhetoric</a> appear to signal an acceleration of Republican skepticism toward scientific research carried out in the public interest.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"828574430800539648"}"></div></p>
<p>This said, what is keeping political scientists, particularly those like me who study political psychology, up at night is not the Trump administration’s ideologically driven science bias. Rather, it is the fact that Trump himself exhibits an authoritarian style of motivated reasoning that appears to be intended (consciously or not) to consolidate his power. </p>
<p>This combination – institutional challenges to the scientific integrity of government employees and Trump’s willingness to disregard evidence on a variety of matters – has broad and ominous implications beyond how science informs national policies. </p>
<h2>Science as political target</h2>
<p>Politically motivated skepticism of science is certainly not new. As I have argued elsewhere, <a href="http://communication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-107?rskey=jlffxR&result=1#acrefore-9780190228613-e-107-bibItem-0042">science is consistently a political target</a> precisely because of its political power. </p>
<p>Science has “epistemic authority,” meaning it is the best method humans have available to understand what is true about the world. For this reason, policy decisions are expected to be based in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Based-Policy-Practical-Guide-Better/dp/0199841624/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486514338&sr=1-1&keywords=evidence-based+policy">large part on scientific conclusions</a>. And as the size and scope of the federal government has increased, so has the use of scientific research in government decision-making, making it an even bigger target.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scott Pruitt, a skeptic of well-established climate science and ally of the fossil fuel industry, will head the EPA, an agency charged with protecting the environment and health.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/24967514373/in/photolist-E3i3aK-ERurNv-9mXnoy-rqKgqb-eac2U8-roxxSu-roxzyL-r7wfNP-r7waTt-rqQygP-p1nWhb-nbGwQY-r9oDqD-nbGtUu-9mXmBW-nsVqj3-nbGqz2-nbGnqM-nteJif-nte9nu-nbH1aX-r9g9xm-6LaCys-2QuBHv-nbGEPe-qu49w6-nsUuWa-qu4bNR-nr9pGw-nbGtX2-nsVpdW-nsVmmU-nbGWWL-r7w9jM-8sDtvi-nbGZRS-9mUjLk-nbGJ5d-r9hceU-nteqzj-nuY8Px-nbH3D4-nsV2gZ-nbGpWD-nsVe6S-ntbZYR-nsUsTT-nsVi6A-nr9QVs-8sGwmo">gageskidmore/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A number of actions taken so far by the Trump administration seem to portend hostility to government-sponsored science and science-backed policy. Many were alarmed by orders during the administration’s first week in office that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agencies-told-to-halt-communications-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html?_r=0">government agencies cease all communications with the public</a>. </p>
<p>But likely more indicative of the administration’s attitude toward government-sponsored research are Trump’s nominees to head Cabinet-level agencies. These individuals have <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/trump-cabinet-tracker/510527/">less relevant expertise than previous administrations</a>, and Trump’s Cabinet is the first in recent memory to include <a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/12/28/506299885/how-the-donald-trump-cabinet-stacks-up-in-3-charts">no one with a Ph.D</a>. The nominee to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has questioned well-accepted climate science and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/trumps-epa-pick-is-skeptical-of-more-than-just-climate-change/509960/">worked closely with energy companies to undermine the agency he is to head</a>. </p>
<p>In addition, Trump’s choice for OMB director, Mick Mulvaney, has taken a similar tack with respect to <a href="http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/21/14012552/trump-budget-director-research-science-mulvaney">government-sponsored science aimed at protecting the public’s health</a>. The two scientists said to be under consideration for science advisor both happen to be far <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/rumours-swirl-about-trump-s-science-adviser-pick-1.21336">outside the mainstream on climate science</a> (neither is a climate scientist).</p>
<h2>‘Bending’ science for political reasons</h2>
<p>It is important to recognize that scientific evidence is not the only legitimate consideration underlying a policy decision. There may be larger ideological commitments at stake or constituents to please or (less justifiably) more strategic political considerations. </p>
<p>The problem for science and evidence-based policy comes when politicians and other political actors decide to <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1608193942/ref=pd_luc_rh_bxgy_01_02_t_img_lh?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1">discredit the science</a> on which a conclusion is based or bend the science to support their policy position. Call it “policy-based evidence” as opposed to “evidence-based policy.”</p>
<p>Such bending of science comes in <a href="http://communication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-107?rskey=jlffxR&result=1#acrefore-9780190228613-e-107-bibItem-0042">a variety of forms</a>: cherry-picking studies and experts that support your perspective; harassing government-sponsored scientists – via cuts in funding or investigations – whose conclusions weigh against policies you prefer; forcing government scientists to change the language of reports for political reasons.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">John Marburger was science advisor to George W. Bush, whose administration was criticized for manipulating how science was used in policy decisions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marburger#/media/File:John_Marburger_official_portrait.jpg">Brookhaven National Laboratory</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Science bias in and of itself is not conservative or liberal, and <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716214555474">one can find it on both sides of the political spectrum</a>. However, if we are to avoid <a href="http://fusion.net/story/341420/the-maddening-world-of-false-equivalence-media-from-a-climate-reporter-who-knows/">false equivalence</a>, we must admit that most of the anti-science bias coming from politicians in recent decades has been from the Republican Party. This <a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Science-Waging-Matters-About/dp/1571313532/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486518402&sr=1-1&keywords=war+on+science">bias</a> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1608193942/ref=pd_luc_rh_bxgy_01_02_t_img_lh?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1">has been</a> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/0465046762/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486518402&sr=1-3&keywords=war+on+science">documented extensively</a>. (One can also check out the two parties’ <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php">2016 party platforms</a>.) </p>
<p>There is a straightforward reason for this partisan difference: Much contemporary government-sponsored research is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Branch-Science-Advisers-Policymakers/dp/0674300629/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486514613&sr=8-1&keywords=fifth+branch">in service of a growing regulatory state</a>. Republicans tend to oppose federal government regulation because of their longstanding representation of business interests and commitment to states’ rights. In recent decades, the Republican Party also has become the political home to religious conservatives, many of whom distrust science because it <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Creationism-Control-Americas-Classrooms/dp/0521148863/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1486519690&sr=8-1">challenges biblical authority, particularly with respect to evolution</a>.</p>
<p>The George W. Bush administration was arguably the heyday for ideologically driven <a href="https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps94771/20071210101633.pdf">interference in government-produced science</a>, something well-documented in <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/reports-scientific-integrity.html#.WJp3qm8rKM8">two</a> <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/scientific-integrity-in.html#.WJp32W8rKM8">reports</a> by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In response to this, the Obama administration put in place various <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/01/preserving-scientific-integrity-in-federal-policymaking-ucs-2017.pdf">institutional safeguards to protect the integrity of science</a>, and Congress strengthened its <a href="https://www.congress.gov/112/bills/s743/BILLS-112s743enr.pdf">protection of federal whistleblowers</a>. </p>
<p>But Trump’s rhetoric and actions – both before and after assuming the presidency – seem to foreshadow a <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/01/preserving-scientific-integrity-in-federal-policymaking-ucs-2017.pdf">return to Bush-era tactics</a>. Trump’s Cabinet choices exhibit an unusual fixation on <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-trump-misses-about-regulations-they-produce-benefits-as-well-as-costs-72470">deregulation</a>, particularly in the arena of energy and the environment. And both Trump and his powerful vice president have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/11/10/trump-and-pence-on-science-in-their-own-words/?utm_term=.ba5da63ef91e">a history of making statements</a> that are ignorant and mistrustful of science.</p>
<h2>Danger in the rhetoric</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, there is reason to suspect that Trump’s disdain for scientific research is not only driven by political ideology and the interests he represents. Trump clearly <a href="http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/10/why-is-trumps-skin-so-much-thinner-than-clintons.html">chafes</a> against anyone or anything that challenges his power, including empirical reality.</p>
<p>Trump’s constant efforts to aggrandize himself are plain to see. In the past, Donald Trump lied about everything from the size of his home to his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-boasts-of-his-philanthropy-but-his-giving-falls-short-of-his-words/2016/10/29/b3c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.23e32af49837">donations to charity</a>. In service of whipping up a crowd, Trump has been willing to scapegoat entire minority groups and falsely question a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/">president’s citizenship</a>.</p>
<p>So far, President Trump has focused mainly on <a href="http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/21/14347952/trump-spicer-press-conference-crowd-size-inauguration">crowd sizes</a>, <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trumps-authoritarian-approach-to-managing-public-opinion.html">poll numbers</a> and the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/12/04/trump-responds-immediately-saturday-night-live-skit-mocking-his-tweets/94933756/">merits of comedians’ performances</a>. Many Americans are tempted to not take these distortions of seemingly trivial topics seriously. But this is authoritarian rhetoric. </p>
<p>As with all presidents, Trump will eventually face data that reflect poorly on some aspects of his job performance: for example, pollution levels, disease rates, disappointing jobs figures, etc. He has been so consistent in his dissembling to protect his reputation that it would be surprising if this behavior did not continue in the face of more serious threats. Scholars are already speculating that Trump may employ <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/gdp-unemployment-credible-trump/515205/">Nixonian efforts to doctor official government statistics</a> or discourage critical scholarly study of society under his administration by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/02/a-field-guide-to-political-scientists-trying-to-survive-the-trump-administration/?utm_term=.e62e671e8439">eliminating NSF social and economic science funding</a>.</p>
<p>Between his executive power and the power of the bully pulpit, President Trump has considerable ability to harm the scientific enterprise and quite possibly democratic institutions as well. This is a time, in my view, for <a href="http://search.proquest.com.proxyau.wrlc.org/docview/1858823793?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=8285">scientists, and experts more generally, to mobilize</a>. As Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School argues, experts play <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Power-Constraint-Accountable-Presidency-After/dp/0393081338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486545403&sr=1-1&keywords=power+and+constraint">a critical role at moments like this as a “synopticon”</a> – a large collective closely <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/containing-trump/513854/">monitoring</a> the actions of our political leaders.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72548/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Suhay currently consults for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She is assisting AAAS as they develop a new training program aimed at helping scientists better communicate their scientific findings to policymakers.</span></em></p>Scientists are concerned that politics will trump evidence in the new administration. A researcher of political psychology explains why these worries matter far beyond questions of science.Elizabeth Suhay, Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public AffairsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/703792016-12-14T11:17:12Z2016-12-14T11:17:12ZTrump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149980/original/image-20161213-1629-wbsibj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">J. Robert Oppenheimer, often called the 'father of the atomic bomb' who chaired the ancestor of today's Department of Energy, had his security clearance revoked during the 'Red Scare' of the 1950s. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>President-elect Trump has called global warming “<a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/418542137899491328?lang=en">bullshit</a>” and a “<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">Chinese hoax</a>.” He has promised to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate treaty and to “bring back coal,” the world’s dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuel. The incoming administration has paraded a roster of climate change deniers for top jobs. On Dec. 13, Trump named former Texas Governor Rick Perry, another <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/rick-perry-galileo-and-global-warming/">climate change denier</a>, to lead the Department of Energy (DoE), an agency Perry said he would eliminate altogether during his 2011 presidential campaign.</p>
<p>Just days earlier, the Trump transition team presented the DoE with a 74-point questionnaire that has <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505105258/trump-questionnaire-raises-concerns-about-retaliation-against-energy-department">raised alarm</a> among employees because the questions appear to target people whose work is related to climate change.</p>
<p>For me, as a historian of science and technology, the questionnaire – bluntly <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_ENERGY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">characterized by one DoE official as a “hit list” </a> – is starkly reminiscent of the worst excesses of ideology-driven science, seen everywhere from the U.S. Red Scare of the 1950s to the Soviet and Nazi regimes of the 1930s. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.eenews.net/assets/2016/12/09/document_gw_06.pdf">questionnaire</a> asks for a list of “all DoE employees or contractors” who attended the annual Conferences of Parties to the <a href="http://unfccc.int/2860.php">United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change</a> – a binding treaty commitment of the U.S., signed by George H. W. Bush in 1992. Another question seeks the names of all employees involved in meetings of the Interagency Working Group on the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon">Social Cost of Carbon</a>, responsible for technical guidance quantifying the economic benefits of avoided climate change.</p>
<p>It also targets the scientific staff of DoE’s national laboratories. It requests lists of all professional societies scientists belong to, all their publications, all websites they maintain or contribute to, and “all other positions… paid and unpaid,” which they may hold. These requests, too, are likely aimed at climate scientists, since most of the national labs conduct research related to climate change, including climate modeling, data analysis and data storage.</p>
<p>On Dec. 13, a DoE spokesperson told the Washington Post the agency <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/13/energy-dept-rejects-trumps-request-to-name-climate-change-workers-who-remain-worried/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_davidson-955a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d16b71eef081">will not provide individual names</a> to the transition team, saying “We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department.”</p>
<h2>Energy’s interest in climate</h2>
<p>Why does the Department of Energy conduct research on climate change? A better question might be: How could any Department of Energy fail to address climate change?</p>
<p>Established in the 1940s under the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the US national labs’ original assignment was simple: Design, build and test nuclear weapons and atomic energy. Since nuclear bombs create deadly fallout and reactor accidents can release radiation into the air, weather forecasting and climate knowledge were integral to that mission. Therefore, some labs immediately began building internal expertise in “nuclear meteorology.”</p>
<p>When high-flying supersonic transport aircraft were proposed in the late 1960s, the labs used climate models to analyze how their exhaust gases might affect the stratosphere. In the 1970s, the labs applied weather and climate simulations developed for nuclear weapons work to analyze urban smog and the global effects of volcanic eruptions. Later, the labs investigated whether nuclear war might cause dangerous climatic effects, such as catastrophic ozone depletion or “nuclear winter.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149989/original/image-20161213-1596-1vjzh5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149989/original/image-20161213-1596-1vjzh5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149989/original/image-20161213-1596-1vjzh5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149989/original/image-20161213-1596-1vjzh5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149989/original/image-20161213-1596-1vjzh5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149989/original/image-20161213-1596-1vjzh5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149989/original/image-20161213-1596-1vjzh5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149989/original/image-20161213-1596-1vjzh5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The incoming Trump administration asked for names of researchers at the Department of Energy’s national labs as well as employees who attended international climate change conferences, raising concern that personnel will be targeted for work on climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandialabs/9367090314/in/faves-37916456@N02/">Sandia National Laboratories</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The newly formed Department of Energy took over the labs in 1977. Its broadened mission included research on all forms of energy production, efficiency, pollution and waste. In the late 1970s, for example, Pacific Northwest Lab <a href="http://www.pnnl.gov/about/history.asp">sampled aerosol pollution with research aircraft, using instruments of its own design</a>. </p>
<p>By the 1980s, when man-made climate change became a major scientific concern, the labs were ready for the challenge. For example, Oak Ridge National Laboratory has run the <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/">Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center</a> since 1982, one of many DoE efforts that <a href="http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/Edwards2012EntangledHistoriesBAS.pdf">contribute crucially to human knowledge about global climate change</a>.</p>
<h2>An ideologically driven purge?</h2>
<p>The Trump questionnaire harks back to the McCarthyist “red scare” of the early 1950s, when congressional committees and the FBI hounded eminent scientists accused of communist leanings. </p>
<p>A principal target of suspicion then was J. Robert Oppenheimer, the theoretical physicist who led the Los Alamos atomic bomb project, but later opposed nuclear proliferation. Oppenheimer chaired the General Advisory Committee to the AEC, direct ancestor to the DoE – and saw his <a href="http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/oppenheimer-security-hearing">security clearance unjustly revoked</a> following humiliating hearings by that same AEC in 1954.</p>
<p>Many other physicists were also “repeatedly subjected to illegal surveillance by the FBI, paraded in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, charged time and again… with being the ‘weakest links’ in national security, and widely considered to be more inherently susceptible to communist propaganda than any other group of scientists or academics,” according to a <a href="http://web.mit.edu/dikaiser/www/Kaiser.RedTheorists.pdf">history</a> by author David Kaiser, on suspicions of atomic scientists in the early days of the Cold War. </p>
<p>Another Red Scare target was John Mauchly, a chief designer of the first American electronic digital computers and a founder of the computer company UNIVAC. Mauchly was <a href="http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/bitbybit/bit-by-bit-contents/end-matter/appendix-the-fbi-dossier-of-john-william-mauchly/">investigated by the FBI</a> and denied a security clearance for several years.</p>
<p>A much broader ideology-based attack on learning occurred in 1930s Germany, when the Nazis purged universities of Jewish and left-leaning scholars. Many German Jewish scientists emigrated to the United States. Ironically, the work of those immigrants in this country led to a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1910247">massive increase in patent filings in their primary fields of science</a>.</p>
<p>The Soviet Union had one of the worst histories of purging scientists whose work was considered ideologically impure. In the 1930s, the agrobiologist Trofim Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics, including the very existence of genes and DNA. He propounded, instead, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism">erroneous theory</a> that an organism could pass on to its descendants characteristics acquired during its lifetime. Under this theory, Stalin and other Communist Party leaders believed, people who studiously practiced communist ideology could pass on their “improved” traits to their sons and daughters. They condemned mainstream genetics as <a href="http://web.mit.edu/slava/homepage/articles/Gerovitch-Russian-Scandals.pdf">metaphysical, reactionary and idealist</a>.</p>
<p>Soviet ideologues also distorted quantum mechanics, cybernetics, sociology, statistics, psychology and physiology, often by violent means. From the 1930s well into the 1980s, tens of thousands of Soviet scientists and engineers were <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=m_wPpj64GqMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=graham+science+in+russia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI0POprO_QAhVmiVQKHSDVCkgQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=graham%20science%20in%20russia&f=false">harassed, arrested, sent to the gulags, executed or assassinated</a> when their conclusions did not align with official communist beliefs.</p>
<p>Climate science in the U.S. has already been targeted by government administrators. The George W. Bush administration of the 2000s literally <a href="http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/political-interference-climate-change-science-under-bush-administration-december-2007/p15079">rewrote scientific reports</a> to weaken their findings on global warming. </p>
<p>In 2007 testimony, former officials of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) admitted to extensive editing of documents from the EPA and many other agencies “to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming.” And when scientists’ views conflicted with the administration’s official line that global warming science remained uncertain, the CEQ often <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1212/p03s03-uspo.html">denied them permission to speak with reporters</a>. </p>
<h2>Worries over dismissal or intimidation</h2>
<p>The highly targeted nature of the Trump questionnaire – especially the requested lists of individual scientists and leaders – suggests preparations for another ideologically driven purge. </p>
<p>On the day it was <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-09/trump-team-s-memo-hints-at-broad-shake-up-of-u-s-energy-policy">revealed by Bloomberg</a>, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4018614/Trump-transition-team-seeks-details-Energy-Dept-workers.html#ixzz4SeFTUuAE">sent Trump a letter</a> warning him that “an illegal modern-day political witch hunt” would create “a profoundly chilling impact on our dedicated federal workforce.” Thus far, it appears the Trump administration <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/climate-change-energy-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0">has not responded</a> to media queries on the questionnaire. </p>
<p>Soviet-style government-sponsored violence seems highly improbable (though for years, some high-profile climate scientists have suffered <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers">death threats</a>). Instead, the incoming administration might indulge in large-scale summary dismissals, program cancellations and moving entire portfolios, not only at the DoE but also at NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, private and corporate-sponsored <a href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about/attacks-on-scientists/">intimidation campaigns against individual climate scientists</a> – underway <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/">since the 1990s</a>, and often backed by the fossil fuel industry – will surely gain momentum and scope. An administration that directly attacks science and scientists will amplify them enormously.</p>
<p>It’s worth noting that despite considerable differences on regulatory policy, every president from Nixon and Carter in the 1970s to Bush and Obama in the 2000s supported the scientific work needed to discover, understand and mitigate climate change.</p>
<p>Basic research on energy, pollution and climate change – much of it carried out at DoE laboratories – is essential to clear-eyed policy, which must be based on solid knowledge of the true costs and benefits of all forms of energy. </p>
<h2>The Department of Energy’s response</h2>
<p>The Trump questionnaire violates American political norms by targeting individual civil service employees, many of whom have worked for the agency for decades through multiple changes of administration. </p>
<p>It strongly suggests that even if incoming administrators do not target individuals for retribution, these appointees will attempt to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.640b541cf719">delete climate change</a> from the roster of energy-related scientific issues. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149993/original/image-20161213-1600-1tgh5wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149993/original/image-20161213-1600-1tgh5wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149993/original/image-20161213-1600-1tgh5wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149993/original/image-20161213-1600-1tgh5wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149993/original/image-20161213-1600-1tgh5wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149993/original/image-20161213-1600-1tgh5wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149993/original/image-20161213-1600-1tgh5wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149993/original/image-20161213-1600-1tgh5wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A representative from the Department of Energy said it will not provide individual names to the Trump transition team ‘to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/3363884240/">nostri-imago/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The best way to resist this will be to contest the basic premise. Since virtually every energy-related issue has implications for climate change, and vice versa, attempting to separate climate change from energy policy would be completely illogical and counterproductive. To oppose that separation, all DoE researchers – not just climate scientists, but all scientists, lab technicians, staff, everyone involved in any way with research – should insist that their work requires them to consider the causes and consequences of climate change. </p>
<p>An all-hang-together strategy such as this would be brave and risky. Not everyone would join in. Many would fear for their livelihoods and hope to hang on by keeping their heads down. A handful might even sympathize with the incoming administration’s position. In the end, such a strategy might cost even more employees their jobs. </p>
<p>But it would send the vital message that it isn’t just a few scientists, not some tiny cabal, but a vast majority of all scientists who understand that <a href="http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/vastmachine/index.html">man-made climate change is real, well-understood and exceedingly consequential for human societies</a>. It is among the most urgent political issues facing our nation and the world.</p>
<h2>Nightfall for climate science?</h2>
<p>In Isaac Asimov’s 1941 short story “<a href="https://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/nightfall.pdf">Nightfall</a>,” scientists huddle in an astronomical observatory on Lagash, a planet with six suns. For many centuries, one or more of those suns has always been up. The current inhabitants of Lagash, bathed in perpetual daylight, have never seen stars or experienced darkness. As the story opens, the university director addresses a hostile reporter: “You have led a vast newspaper campaign against the efforts of myself and my colleagues to organize the world against the menace which it is now too late to avert.”</p>
<p>The “menace” in question is nightfall, which comes to Lagash just once every 2,049 years. That moment is now upon them. Only one sun remains above the horizon, its last light rapidly fading due to a total eclipse – predicted by the scientists, but ridiculed as unfounded in the press.</p>
<p>In the gathering darkness, a mob bent on ruin marches on the observatory. The scientists do not expect to survive. They hope only to preserve enough knowledge and data that “the next cycle will start off with the truth, and when the next eclipse comes, mankind will at last be ready for it.”</p>
<p>A dark time is coming to American climate science. Trump’s mob of climate change deniers has begun its march on our present-day observatories. Like the scientists in “Nightfall,” we must do our utmost to ensure that after the coming eclipse, “the next cycle will start off with the truth.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70379/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul N Edwards receives funding from the US National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>A historian of science and technology says Trump team’s request for names of Department of Energy employees working on climate change recalls worst excesses of ideology-driven science in government.Paul N. Edwards, William J. Perry Fellow in International Security, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.