Advice from people with experience fighting powerful fascist opponents: “Do not comply in advance.”
In a new Science editorial, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine president Marcia McNutt starts complying well in advance.
The editorial begins with blatant concern trolling:
I had become ever more concerned that science has fallen victim to the
same political divisiveness tearing at the seams of American society.
Okay, stop. McNutt provides zero examples of supposed “divisiveness” of the scientific community. A recent Nature article showed exactly the opposite. The scientific community was strongly united in its preferred American election outcome: 86% favoured the losing candidate. I guess McNutt sees that as bad because it makes it harder for her to play nice with with administration of the winning candidate.
(The scientific community) must take a critical look at what responsibility it bears in science becoming politically contentious(.)
Okay, stop. Again, McNutt provides zero examples of scientists making science politically contentious. On the other hand, I can point to many examples of politicians who waded into scientific debates about the reality of whole branches of science (evolution, geology, climate science) and health care.
No, the problem (according to McNutt) is that we scientists don’t explain ourselves well. We don’t tell politicians and citizens about how we are just disinterested third parties.
(S)cience, at its most basic, is apolitical.
Okay, stop. I know this is a popular claim, but it’s time to put this into the ground and bury it six feet deep. There is a very good Nature podcast series that takes this claim apart. Claiming “We’re not political” is a fiction that favours those who are politically privileged. McNutt would have had a much stronger case if she had said that science is not partisan. Or that reality is apolitical.
But science is an organized profession done by humans, so science is political.
It is strange to say that science is apolitical when I see the two entangled all the time.
McNutt continues:
Whether conservative or liberal, citizens ignore the nature of reality at their peril.
Okay, stop. Many elected politicians and citizens are just fine with ignoring the nature of reality – as long as they personally are not affected. And those who are personally affected, in genuine peril, may not be able to generate enough political clout to change policy to make themselves safe on their own. They need allies.
McNutt’s argument that “the arc of the scientific universe is long, but it bends towards truth” is callous. It seems like her view is that scientists should passively sit on the sidelines, presenting data but never advocating, while watch people make the same mistakes about discredited claims that actively harm people over and over.
I can’t help but wonder where McNutt has been for the last decade or so when she can, apparently in all seriousness, write a sentence like this about climate science:
It is up to society and its elected leadership to decide how to balance these options, including the use of renewable energy, climate adaptation, carbon capture, or even various interventions that reflect sunlight back into space.
Okay, stop.
Does McNutt understand that the incoming elected leadership repeatedly stated that their option is, “Climate science is all a hoax. We don’t need to do anything”?
Does McNutt understand that elected leaders can use their power to take actions that are not supported by the majority of society or scientific evidence?
Should scientists simply accept that their elected leadership is
condemning millions to ever greater misery every day this denial of
reality goes on?
McNutt is just trying to get her organization out of the line of fire of an incoming government that is more overtly hostile to science than maybe any other American government ever.
The NAS stands ready, as it always has, to advise the incoming administration.
While it is the job of a civil servant to work with a new boss after every election, most scientists are not civil servants. They are not obligated to support a new government. They can, and should, do much more than just provide data and hope that elected leaders eventually come around to face scientific reality. If anyone is not coming around to face reality – the political reality, in this case – it’s McNutt.
External links
Science is neither red nor blue
The US election is monumental for science, say Nature readers — here’s why
“Stick to the science”: When science gets political (Three part podcast series)
