The Union of Concerned Scientists has a poll right now — pick your favorite cartoon about the politicization of science. You’ve got 12 to choose from.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
The Union of Concerned Scientists has a poll right now — pick your favorite cartoon about the politicization of science. You’ve got 12 to choose from.
Mark Morford is wonderfully excited about the prospects for biological research, and I don’t blame him. Consider what the world was like in 1900 and how physics and engineering changed it by 2000; from horse-and-buggy and steam locomotive to interstates and jet planes, from telegraph to world-wide communication networks. We’re going to see a revolution of that magnitude in the coming century, too, and you can expect biology and medicine to be at the forefront. Well, maybe. As Morford writes, the alternative is to
…hold tight to the leaky life raft of inflexible ideology (hello, organized religion), to rules and laws and codes of conduct written by the fearful, for the fearful, to live in constant low-level dread of all the extraordinary changes and radical rethinkings of what it means to be human or animal or male or female or hetero or homo or any other swell little label you thought was solid and trustworthy but which is increasingly proven to be blurry and unpredictable and just a little dangerous.
We know which side GW Bush and the Republican party are on: with the knuckle-draggers and antique hierarchies of organized religion. Our president has vetoed a bill to support stem cell research. This is remarkable: he has only vetoed three bills in his entire presidency, and two of them have been with the intent of killing stem cell research. Just as remarkably, our representatives in congress haven’t been able to muster the numbers to override that veto. Imagine if the American government had voted to censure the Wright brothers and to outlaw the internal combustion engine at the turn of the last century, or if they’d decided to condemn the kinds of radical and dangerous physics being pursued at places like Princeton and Chicago. It wouldn’t have changed a thing about the natural world, or the discoveries that were made; it might have slowed the pace a bit, but the changes would still have come from England and France and Germany and Japan and the Soviet Union … the biggest difference would be that the United States would be an irrelevant backwater.
That’s what the Republicans are doing to this country right now: damning us to a future as a backward, corrupt mess, a big, blundering headache for the world. In 2100, will the rest of the planet see us in the same way Turkey was seen in 1900?
Two videos with surprising similarities: Richard Dawkins and Digby. Both discuss being vilified by conservative forces for being “strident”, and both explain that it’s all about passion for a cause—Digby for progressive politics, Dawkins for godlessness.
Hank Fox has brought a significant problem to my attention, one that I’ve addressed before: one of the consequences of growing American cowardice and these trumped-up Wars on Terror and Drugs (let’s call them what they are: a War on Civil Liberties) is that science and science education are collateral damage. Memepunks has an excellent post on this subject:
In an attempt to curb the production of crystal meth, more than 30 states have now outlawed or require registration for common lab equipment. In Texas, you need to register the purchase of Erlenmeyer flasks or three-necked beakers. The same state where I do not have to register a handgun, forces me to register a glass beaker. In Portland, Oregon, even pH strips are suspect. Modern off the shelf “chemistry” sets are sold without any of the questionable chemicals or equipment. For example, when a current company tried re releasing a kit based on the one marketed by Mr. Wizard himself back in the 1950s, they found that they could only include five of the original chemicals in the set. The rest of the items were replaced with inane things like super balls and balloons. Even a non neutered modern chemistry set like the C3000 from Thames and Kosmos is forced to ship without many key chemicals, suggesting to their customers that they acquire the missing ingredients elsewhere.
In the name of child safety, in order to inhibit drug peddlers, because we don’t want to make things easy for terrorists, we have put up bureaucratic barriers to the purchase of laboratory glassware — while encouraging unimpaired, unchecked access to guns.
Is this a screwed-up country, or what?
The memepunks site has some suggestions for getting around the restrictions.
But there are some lights shinning in the darkness of this situation. Companies like United Nuclear, which continue to sell chemicals and lab equipment despite legal problems, and websites that support chemistry hobbyists. Like Readily Available Chemicals, which maintains a list of places where one can make an end run around the restrictions and purchase chemicals or lab ware. Or The Nitrogen Order, who provides a how to on building your own chemistry set, and provides lessons and experiments. And Science Madness who’s forums give hobbyists a place to meet, compare notes, and exchange secrets of the trade anonymously. One of my favorites is the Society for Amateur Scientists, which just began a LABRats program, to match up youngsters that are interested in science with mentors that are practicing scientists.
That’s right, people, this is what it is coming down to: you need to break the law to do science. We’re criminalizing nerds.
At least making science dangerous and illicit and illegal ought to make us romantic outlaws look cool.
Why is the reality-based community ignored? Because the other side, the Jesus-loving wingnut loons, is committed to defending idiocy, while the Democrats have a complete lack of any guiding principle, other than to get elected. Nick Coleman has another perfect example, not that there’s any shortage of them, in the defeat of a sensible bill here in Minnesota.
George W. Bush is having private conversations with an invisible friend. Back in 2003 he met with the Palestinians and told them all about it.
Nabil Shaath says: “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.” And I did, and then God would tell me, “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …” And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, “Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.” And by God I’m gonna do it.'”
Let’s get George to sit down and lead us through every step of these conversations—I’m sure his fundamentalist base would love it. Although I think there is a serious problem here that the literalists will point out to him. Notice that God did not say, “send other men to fight terrorists.” He said, “George, go.”
Those words are so clear and unambiguous, I suggest that we immediately give George a rifle and a uniform and ship him off to the Middle East. The fact that we are failing in Iraq is a sign of God’s displeasure that his servant has failed to heed his commands.
Just to be on the safe side, let’s send Cheney and Rice, too.
Oh, crap. Tristero throws me into despair with this sad quote.
Science is a gift of God to all of us and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, arguing for the bill’s passage. “And that is the embryonic stem cell research.”
And here I’ve got a “Pelosi ’07” bumper sticker on my car. How could she say something so idiotic? None of the Democrats are meeting my minimal standards for competence so far.
Paying a pittance to old winos to get them to beat each other up for the camera is cheesy enough, but now they’ve sunk even lower: getting sanctimonious old Republican twits to throw punches at Democrats. Tacky, tacky.
What if they had a debate about evolution, and didn’t bother to invite any scientists? It would be unhinged and divorced from reality, and all the wheels would be spinning wildly, and they could come up with any ol’ crazy crap they wanted. This must be why the American Enterprise Institute sponsored a debate on Darwin and conservatives moderated by Ronald Reagan’s biographer, Steven Hayward, with John Derbyshire and Larry Arnhart defending evolution, and George Gilder and John West, two cranks from the Discovery Institute, criticizing it. Not one scientist in sight, and the account of the proceedings reflects that. The entire debate was about whether reality conflicts with the conservative point of view, and whether they can reinterpret evolution to conform to Wingnuttia.
Unbelievable, I know. Read Brad’s response for a point-by-point takedown.
Just for an example, though, here’s the kind of idea being advanced by evolution’s defenders at that meeting:
It’s a nice idea, but it too might have ended the discussion right then and there, except that Darwinism is once again being used by partisans of a particular political philosophy. This time the lucky philosophy is contemporary American conservatism, and the foremost proponent of the conservative-Darwinian dalliance is Arnhart. He offered a quick summary of his position, which has become popular among right-wingers of a libertarian stripe and has found its fullest expression in Arnhart’s book Darwinian Conservatism.
“Conservatives need Darwin,” he said. Without the scientific evidence Darwinian theory offers, conservative views would be swamped by liberal sentimentality. The left-wing view of human nature as unfixed and endlessly manipulable has led to countless disastrous Utopian schemes. Hard-headed Darwinians, on the other hand, see human nature as settled and enduring and stubbornly unchangeable, and conservatives can wield the findings of Darwin to rebut the scheming, ambitious busybodies of the left and their subversion of custom and tradition. (I’m paraphrasing, by the way.)
The only guy who said anything sensible was Derbyshire.
So Darwinism, viewed one way, can easily be considered morally disastrous. But, responded pro-Darwin Derbyshire, Is it true? “The truth value of Darwinism is essential,” he said. “The truth value always comes first.” If Darwinism is true-and its undeniable success in explaining the world suggests that it is-and if Darwinism undermines conservatism, as West had claimed, “then so much the worse for conservatism.”
And likewise, so much the worse for liberalism if it doesn’t fit reality. The way we ought to be managing our culture is by changing those bits of it that don’t jibe well with nature, rather than allowing ideology to run roughshod over the evidence.
I passed on listening to the Democratic debates, so you can sure as heck bet I skipped the recent Republican debate. Just as well, too; the candidates got pressed on that evolution question again, and wouldn’t you know it, it simply triggered an avalanche of idiocy, with Mike Huckabee leading the way. Just look at these quotes.
