Legal Niches

The Intersection of Science and Politics

By Jim Holtkamp

To the average person, ?science? is synonymous with ?truth.? To the scientist, however, science is a process of searching for truth.  A scientist will be the first to admit that behind every ?scientific fact? there lies more subtlety, more complexity, more elegance and more search for truth.  Even the most well-settled scientific principle is subject to new findings.  One only needs to look at the effect of Einstein?s theory of special relativity on Newtonian physics.  Scientists are also human beings, however, subject to human passions and imperfections.  It is difficult for a scientist to be truly dispassionate about what she/he believes to be the ?best science,? and thus will often exhibit the very human propensity to ignore, trivialize or demonize a viewpoint that is different, especially when huge amounts of money, high professional standings, and large egos are at stake.

To the average person, ?politics? is a messy, distasteful process of acquiring and maintaining power, with little acknowledgment of the public good.  To a political scientist, however, politics is the process of governance, behind which is a complex web of relationships, personalities, resources, and not a little public spirit. We often forget that Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Winston Churchill were all consummate politicians.  However, politicians are humans, too, and the distortion of facts and manipulation of data are all too frequent tools to carry out a particular political agenda.

What happens when science and politics collide?  The result is the combination juggernaut and train wreck called climate change.  There is perhaps no other issue in the modern era over which science and politics have become so conflated. Science and politics have become wrapped around each other to such an extent that it is often virtually impossible to tease out what is really scientific finding and what is a political statement.   ?Science? is being used as a tool by politicians to justify a particular point of view or to advance an agenda that has little to do with the reality of climate change.  In the same way, the political process is being used by scientists to justify a particular point of view.

Whether it is a Nobel Prize-winning Academy Award winner declaring that the ?debate is over? or a senator who refuses to acknowledge the conclusions of PhD climatologists regarding the reality of climate change, the effect is the same ? confusion, bad policy and bad science.  If you peel away the rhetoric on the left and the right about climate change, you often find an agenda that has less to do with protecting the planet and more to do with protecting a particular point of view and an opportunity to make some real money.

So, how can one make sense out of this confusion?  First, a person has to think for her/himself.  Just because something is in print (particularly on the internet) doesn?t make it true. 

Second, for those who want to educate themselves on the subject, they should look no further than those who have dedicated their life?s work to climate studies.  PhDs are widely regarded as knowing what they?re talking about, and the majority scientific opinion is that climate change is happening and that human activity is having a significant effect.  Also significant, however, is the minority view, which should not automatically be marginalized just because it is at variance with the majority view.  The dynamic between the two points of view should lead to further insights on the issues, even if the process is messy and confusing. 

?Climategate? loudly illustrates the proposition that having a PhD doesn?t guarantee that you won?t do dumb things.  The East Anglia scientists who tried to squelch differing views and who massaged data to fit a predetermined conclusion deserve the disdain of the larger scientific community.  But that larger scientific community, so far, is standing behind the majority view.

It is probably too much to hope that the scientists and politicians would each focus on what they do best.  The consequences of being wrong are too serious not to.

Full post as published by Climage Change Law on December 10, 2009 (boomark / email).