JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

Few politicians have been more friendly to the scientific community than President Barack Obama.  Since his inauguration day when he vowed “to restore science to its rightful place,” he has been the darling of the scientific community.  By lifting the Bush regulations on stem cells, injecting billions of dollars into research funding via the Stimulus bill, appointing Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy, getting behind climate scientists and many more science-friendly moves, he has garnered unyielding support from scientists. 
Sadly, though, I’m beginning to feel that we, scientists, are becoming just another interest group in the eyes of our President.   Why would someone like myself who volunteered for the Obama campaign, served as Precinct captain (doing block walks and managing phone banks), was elected Precinct chairman to run the Democratic Caucus in my voting district, why would I feel that we are becoming just another interest group?
Well, it all started for me when President Obama announced that, despite the scientific consensus, Yucca mountain would not serve as the nation’s nuclear waste depot.  This troubled me because I have studied the historical arguments and the troubled political past that led to establishment of Yucca mountain as the government’s choice to be a nuclear waste storage site.  In my opinion, the science had correctly identified Yucca mountain as the most appropriate location for this purpose and it was evident to me that President Obama’s decision was purely political, designed to help Harry Reid.  The saddest aspect of this decision was the testimony Secretary Chu gave at a congressional hearing discussing the policy change.  In this hearing, when questioned by Senator Patty Murray, Secretary Chu, a Nobel Laureate scientist, was forced to deal in political tactics to justify the administration’s non-scientific decision.  Now, I agree that the political aspects of Yucca mountain were practically untenable, but while Obama has chosen to take tough political stances on moral/ideological issues like DADT, he caved into politics when it came to this major scientific issue. 
This week we are seeing the tell tale signs of more politics overriding science.  In a recent attempt to win the PR war over the BP oil spill, the Obama administration abused the credibility of government scientists by claiming that 75% of the oil had been captured, burned off, evaporated or broken down in the Gulf.  This to me is no different than the false information used to mislead us to believe Iraq had WMDs.  It angers me deeply. Shortly after this announcement, scientists began to question the accuracy of the government’s data.  Actually, attempts early on to see the data were stymied. So, we don’t know if there ever was actual data to support their claims.  Yesterday, senior government scientist Bill Lehr stated contrary to the administration’s announcement that three-quarters of the oil was still in the Gulf environment.  What makes the situation worse is that the previous BP-friendly announcement had already been absorbed into the commentary of radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh who have much to gain politically, and perhaps financially, from arguing against the damage caused by the oil spill.  Scientists have to be appalled that the Administration would so brazenly undermine the science regarding the oil spill. 
What does this do to the credibility of government scientists?  What does it do to the overall scientific community?
When government scientists become politicized, they lose their credibility.  Repeated abuses will erode the trust held by the public for the scientific community.  At a time when scientific integrity is challenged daily by denialists, scientists cannot afford to have the government providing fodder for these denialist groups.  We cannot afford for any group to say that science is manipulated by the government for political purposes.  Of course, it’s naive to suggest that interpretations of science could not be politicized, but I feel strongly that no scientist should be forced to tow the line for any political entity. 
Scientists must stand up and hold the Obama administration accountable for attempts like this to politicize science.  We must demand that the administration refrain from jeopardizing the integrity of the scientific community and we must assure the American people that we do not condone this behavior.
That said, I reject the outright condemnation of the administration (they have done great things for science) and I encourage all voters to support political figures who are generally friendly to science, even if they have made mistakes.  Further, I do not encourage boycotts or attacks on the Obama administration for these types of transgressions.  I believe we can make it clear to politicians that scientists expect to be protected from politicization.  We, those of us who work in science and engineering, are a fairly large segment of the voting community at 7 million.  We can have an influence if we choose to flex our democratic muscles.  And, when necessary, we must. 

To learn more about politicians’ positions on scientific issues, check out the Scientists and Engineers for America Sharp Network website.