What a loss of science means
I've been trying to figure out a way to approach the story that Harper and the Conservatives are doing their best to emulate Bush by pushing science and scientists as far from the decision-making process as possible, the better to enure they hear no dissenting voice when making claims based on ideology rather than facts.
Bob Macdonald covered most of the obvious implications:
The National Science Adviser is a voice of reason to the government over actions it should take on issues such as climate change, genetically modified foods, managing fisheries, sustaining the environment - any time the politicians need to be educated on the basic science behind those often controversial issues. Of course, decisions are seldom made for purely scientific reasons; all too often, the interests of industry, special interest groups or a misinformed public will cloud the scientific truth. The Adviser’s job is to provide clarity and perspective.
But to me, having a scientific advisor and a scientific way of thinking impacts a great deal more than what most people think of as "science" issues. The method, and what it means, apply everywhere.
Thomas Levenson of the Inverse Square Blog posted a story that illistrates the point quite well. Read it and come back.
The point he comes to at the end of the post is why the loss of someone like the NSA is a loss for everyone affected by government policies.
Why doesn’t the fact that readily available cheap (and cheaper-for-the-state) alternatives to life-destroying events exist affect this view? Because of a commitment to an unexamined assumption: Exemplary suffering helps focus one’s mind, it is claimed (how else can you read Madras’s comments) and so anything that might defuse the power of the demonstration is to be avoided. Science be damned.
This is, of course, precisely why the idea of good science matters. . . . this story tells us why the issue is vital. Real science demands that theory be ratified by observation and defensible interpretation of the data. Bad science allows ideology to determine what facts, if any, are admitted into the conversation. Right now, bad science is winning.[Emp. mine]
Any issue you choose, any policy you look at. If there is a bad policy, it's usually because nobody bothered to examine the assumptions leading to it and refuse to accept the poor results as being indicative of a problem with the policy. So the bad policy continues because ideology trumps reason.
It;s happened in the US under Bush, and it's happening to Canada now under Harper. And when it happens, we are all in peril.
