President Obama Reaffirms Faith in Science

    By Kevin E. Noonan --

In all the understandable excitement surrounding President Obama's lifting of the Bush Administration's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, his broader message may have gotten lost.  Overturning the stem cell ban is just a part of a return to the tradition, the guiding principle in Western societies since the end of the Dark Ages, to use the scientific method and its results to understand the world and make rational decisions on policy based on science instead of ideology. 

This tradition was suppressed during the Bush years.  The evidence for this conclusion is rampant:  there have been several books published describing the undue influence of ideology (Seth Shulman's Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration, University of California Press, 2006; Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science, Basic Books, 2006), as well as dozens of editorials (collected by the Union of Concerned Scientists here).  The Union has also collected its Periodic Table of these abuses).  While the Bush administration's antipathy to the evidence of global warming is well known, there are several other important issues where ideology trumped science, such as abortion and its psychological and medical effects; various specific environmental policies involving endangered species; and political litmus and loyalty tests for scientists appointed to advisory and other federal panels.

President Obama has been on record for some time as being opposed to this philosophy.  In a radio address in December, announcing members of his scientific and technology advisory team, he said:

[T]oday, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation.  It is time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America's place as the world leader in science and technology.  Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry.  It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.  It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient.  Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.  That will be my goal as President of the United States.

A distinct change from the immediate past.

In his remarks on Monday, President Obama reiterated some of these sentiments:

This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America.  But let's be clear:  promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it is also about protecting free and open inquiry.  It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient.  It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. 

By doing this, we will ensure America's continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs.  That is essential not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.

That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making.  To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.  That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals -- to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.

Amen.

For additional information regarding this or other related topics, please see:
• "President Obama to Life Stem Cell Limits on Monday," March 8, 2009

Comments

[Dan Feigelson]

Kevin, I'm also pleased to see the U.S. ban on stem-cell research lifted, even though where I live (outside the U.S.) it will mean more competition for stem cell researchers, who are presently several years ahead of their U.S. counterparts thanks to Bush's ban. But I think your underlying assumption, which seems to be that science is neutral and immune to ideology, is incorrect.

The science that gets done is oftentimes an effect of political considerations, even if those considerations are not stated as blatantly as the outright ban in the case of stem cell research. Suppose that someone wants to look for a possible link between the presence or absence of certain genetic markers and IQ, and then look at the prevalence and absence of those markers in different ethnic groups. There's no presidential edict against such research, but do you think a grant proposal for such a project, even if sound and authored by Nobel prize winners, would even stand a chance of getting funding?

Or suppose someone wants to demonstrate that human-origin CO2 emissions do not contribute to global warming - again, could that person get funding, let alone tenure?

I was originally trained as a scientist, and notwithstanding a stint studying law, I still consider myself a scientist. I'd like to think I still think like a scientist. But part of being a scientist means being objective about the facts, and in this case, when the practice of science is itself the subject of the inquiry, it's clear that science as practiced isn't neutral.

[jwint]

Another scientist and law practitioner agrees with Dan. Public funding for research is extremely sensitive to political tone and nuance, especially when an impact of that research can be imagined to have social consequences. The Obama administration will be much more muted with respect to its political controls on science, but those effects will still remain. Nonetheless, we are looking forward to a new era when science is more highly respected.

[Kevin E. Noonan]

Dear Dan:

I was thinking about this interpretation of President Obama's remarks, and thought I'd wait until someone raised it to broach the issue.

It is certainly not my contention that scientists are free of ideology - any fair reading of the past shows that (eugenics, IQ, etc.), even when the "ideology" is merely the "prevailing wisdom." Scientists are human, so they will be affected by all the frailties all humans are prone to have.

But there are two distinctions. The first is that scientists work "from the ground up," i.e. each scientist comes to a problem with her own background. This is very different from "top down" ideology, as practiced by the Bush administration. There, the "answer" was already known (from the ideology), the trick was to get the data to support the answer. This is the antithesis of the effect that individual ideology can have on science.

The second distinction is that most scientists, even having their own ideological proclivities, are inclined to use experimental evidence to support or refute their initial ideas. Fundamentally, the results matter, again in a way not involved in ideologically-driven (as opposed to merely ideologically-affected) science.

As for your question about the capacity for renegades to get funding, their numbers abound: the Hill hypothesis of oxidative phosphorylation was counter to the thinking at the time, as were Barbara McClintock's "jumping genes" in corn, for example. There are geologists with theories of a "snowball Earth" and the Alvarezes, father and son, were not believed when they posited a meteor strike as the cause of the Jurassic extinction of the dinosaurs. Finding high levels of iridium in the right strata around the world, and the impact crater off the Yucatan, made that hypothesis acceptable. And, of course, there was Darwin.

Frankly, I think that there are plenty of groups willing to fund "global warming" denier research, but that's the point - the work the Bush administration relied upon to support its skepticism over global warming did not come from climatologists. Prudence suggests that skepticism has its place, but when all of the leading researchers have independently come to the same conclusion that conclusion should have an effect on the policies you implement (because, of course, they could be right after all).

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to address this - I didn't intend to suggest that scientists or science for that matter is ideologically neutral. Just that under this administration we have a chance to have heard the disparate voices of scientists who disagree based on their expertise rather than their ideologies.

[Kevin E. Noonan]

Dear Jwint:

I hope my answer to Dan clarified what I was trying to say. Indeed, there was an article recently, perhaps in the New York Times, regarding the issue of whether a scientist working for a President should be neutral.

I am not looking for perfection, or even even-handedness - I would expect most scientists to be opinionated people who will advocate for their position. But what I expect, and that I think we all have a right to expect, is that the basis of their advice comes from the results of the science. Bill Clinton once said, referring to President Bush, that he (Clinton) had worked very hard to become someone who's world view was grounded in reality, and he liked being there. At least if a scientist's advice turns out to be wrong, there will be a reality-based way of determining that it was wrong, with maybe some suggestion of how to change the policy to do what was intended in the first place.

Thanks for the comment.

[anonymous]

I struggle with this decision. While you make a very poignant point about conducting science from the ground up I believe it glosses over the huge distinction between the global warming debate and the embryonic stem cell debate. As to the global warming debate there are proponents on both sides with an interest in seeing evidence indicate one way or another. Conducting solid, unadulterated, research free from political and ideological influence should be possible and absolutely should be fostered by this administration using federal funds. ESC research is far more divisive and begins to delve deeply into personally held beliefs of morality, religion and the sanctity of life. You can’t remove those from the debate any way you try. An extreme example involving the same factors being the experiments conducted in the name of “science” on POWs, prisoners and others by both the Communists and the Nazis during WWII. No one would advocate this kind of research should be conducted free from ideology and political influence. The sanctity of life forbids us to pursue such research. Scores of individuals feel the same way about ESC research in the United States.
Alternatives such as adult stem cells exist to pursue the same goal of unlocking the potential of stem cell therapy. Using federal funds to pursue what is considered immoral and even unnecessary by some is a disconcerting step to dehumanizing human life which is being sanctioned by our own government.
I am not trying to stir the pot but just want to point out that the view you present is overly simplistic and in my opinion impossible.
Another great and thought provoking article however.

[Kevin E. Noonan]

Dear Anon:

I think everyone who thinks about the decision struggles with it. My point is just that we need to struggle with it, not impose an ideological decision or conclusion. hESCs are vexing morally, since they pose choices that need to be made: existing life versus potential life; use of living tissue that would otherwise go to waste (i.e., be destroyed one way or the other); "ownership" rights over spawn (since the embryos cannot be implanted into any random third party recipient, why should we allow them to be used to make new stem cell lines?), etc.

So the substantive questions are legion and I did not (and will not, on a blog post), get into them. It is the procedural issue, and the shortcut over what I think are the proper procedures (experimental inquiry over as wide a scope of investigators as necessary to arrive at a consensus view of a situation, even if that changes over time). Deciding on an answer beforehand and then cherry-picking the evidence (by definition, ignoring what doesn't fit) to support the conclusion.

Thanks for the comment.