JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

Recently, Nature magazine editorialized about the anti-science constituency within the Republican/Tea Party (is there a difference?).  A follow-up post by Chris Mooney on The Intersection blog reinforces the complaints posed in the Nature article.  He makes the point that the resentment from the “right” is based on their long-standing animosity for academia.  Further, Mooney argues that the problem is compounded by the massive financial investment the Obama administration made in the scientific community.  Mooney and Nature magazine, however, missed a significant political opportunity to emphasize that the perception of an alignment between science and liberal politics has its limitations.  It is not true that liberal politicians tow the “Science Party” line (if there was such a thing and I think there should be).  If scientists are to prevent attacks on science from the “right,” they must emphasize instances in which the Democratic Party and liberals have ignored science when making policy decisions.  Recently, I briefly commented on President Obama’s politicization of science and the dangers scientists face when assuming that either party is truly betrothed to science. 
In my post, I pointed out that President Obama has diverged from the scientific consensus on several issues.  Beginning with the Yucca mountain decision, which I will not rehash here, President Obama made it clear that politics trumps science when necessary.  When politicians fail to incorporate the scientific consensus into policy decisions, I consider it to be an abuse of science.  In a recent case of science abuse committed by the Obama administration, the need for a “feel good” story about the BP oil spill led to a premature communication about the “disappearance” of oil released into the Gulf of Mexico.  The comment was quickly disputed by government scientists which begged the question, “Where did they get their data to make the false statement?”  As far as I know, we never got an answer to that one.  We know today that there is a layer of oil two inches thick along the bottom of the Gulf, the implications of which are yet to be determined, but let’s assume it’s not good for bottom-dwelling organisms.
Since I have awakened to the administration’s and Congress’ not-so-science-friendly science policies, I have found that the Democrats including President Obama are not necessarily the friends of science that we would expect based on the perceptions within the media.  As you read this, America continues to lag behind in our readiness to deal with a biological weapons attack.  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is currently trying to create policies that will improve our life sciences development process by removing bottlenecks and funding research for medical responses to potential biological threats.  So, what’s the problem?
For political gain, Democrats have traditionally attacked pharmaceutical companies for trying to accomplish this exact same thing (reducing the inefficiencies within the drug development process).  And, while I recognize the threat posed by profit-driven pharma companies who wish to get their drugs to consumers, I also appreciate the impetus to quickly approve and manufacture pharmaceuticals that will protect Americans from bioterrorism.  I would argue that these “biodefense” products should be allowed to bypass some of the normal bottlenecks within the FDA since the potential acute threat of a bioweapon attack could be so severe.  Support from the Bioshield program would fund research and development at small companies that would not normally be financially capable of developing these needed drugs.  However, powerful Democrats including John Kerry, Henry Waxman and Barack Obama have long been critical of the pharmaceutical companies on this issue.  To make matters worse, Democrats are threatening to cut funding for BioShield to pay for other programs.

“The sharks are no longer circling; they’ve moved in for the kill,” said Gerald Epstein, director of the Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “This diversion would represent the death of the Bioshield concept … before demolishing Project Bioshield, it is incumbent on the federal government to first come up with some other credible way to engage the technical expertise in the private sector that is necessary to preparing us to deal with a bioterrorist attack.”

It will take some serious political maneuvering to allow for the approval of Sebelius’ recommendations.  And, scientists should not assume that Democrats are going to come down on the side of science.
If this does not convince you that Democrats are not taking science seriously, just consider what has happened with climate legislation.  As summarized in a recent NYT article, it appears that President Obama and the Democrats have de-prioritized the issue of climate change.  The article quotes Joe Romm, a physicist and climate blogger with the Center for American Progress.

“I think that they do not take the issue as seriously as they said they would, and they do not take the issue as seriously as it must be taken” he said.  “It’s disheartening when the president walks back a major commitment. Yes, that’s disheartening.”

The article goes on to cite instances in which the Obama administration has actively pursued actions that directly oppose policies designed to address climate change, such as the case of American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut.  The ruling in this case affirmed the right to sue energy companies based on their contributions to climate change.  The Department of Justice submitted a legal brief encouraging the Supreme Court to throw out the decision! 
Examples like this are becoming all too common under this administration and this Congress.  So, if Mooney and Nature magazine are correct that science is perceived as bedding down with the liberals, scientists need to rethink how and why these perceptions are so pervasive.  To prevent attacks from the right, scientists should distinguish themselves from politicians and we should not allow politicians to choose to use science at their leisure.  Science is not affiliated with a specific party.  Quite the contrary, the Democratic Party has chosen to affiliate with science.  The public should be aware of this message in order to prevent science from losing its objectivity and becoming a legitimate target of the right.