The Chris Science Monitor

Online environmental rag Grist Magazine has a current interview with author of The Republican War on Science author, Chris Mooney. The interview, aside from being a fun read, reveals some of the topics Mr. Mooney addresses in his new book. I, for one, will be dishing out my cash-back bonus awards for a copy ASAP!

Here's a taste:

question Has the Bush administration been especially adept at exploiting conventional journalistic weaknesses, or are reporters lazier or more credulous these days in covering scientific disputes?

answer The press doesn't generally help these matters. This is an argument I have made twice now in Columbia Journalism Review. Through their instinctive tendency to create a "balance" between two sides, journalists repeatedly allow science abusers to create phony "controversies," even though the scientific merits of the issue may exclusively be with one side.

Here's my real fear when it comes to the press. Suppose there's some mainstream scientific view that you want to set up a think tank to challenge -- to undermine, to controversialize. Suppose further that you have a lot of money, as well as an interested and politically influential constituency on board with your agenda. In this situation, it seems to me that as long as you are clever enough, you should be able to set your political machine in motion and then sit back and watch the national media do the rest of your work for you. The press will help you create precisely the controversy that lies at the heart of your political and public relations strategy -- and not only that. It will do a far better job than the best PR firm, and its services will be entirely free of charge.

I think we have actually seen this happen repeatedly. A good example is the issue of evolution.

and...

question What's the proper line between science and policy? Should there be a wall between them, with scientists expected to speak purely on empirical conclusions and then pass the baton over the wall? Or is it inevitable that scientists and science organizations will have policy preferences?

answer I don't believe in a firm wall of separation between science and politics. Rather, I believe in a productive interaction between the two spheres.

A slogan that you hear a lot is, "on tap, not on top." The basic idea is that scientists should be there to provide politicians with the best information when they need it. But the scientists don't make the final decisions -- politicians do. It's a lot like the role of the CIA when it comes to informing foreign policy. Politicians should listen to the experts in the intelligence community, but then they have to make the final decision about what to do.

But what politicians should never do is handpick the experts, or distort the information, to justify prior political commitments. And that's exactly what's been happening from the political right and the Republican Party.

As far as scientists lobbying goes, scientists have always been involved in politicking when it comes to seeking research funding. And if they feel the need to stand up for the integrity of science, that's also a legitimate area in which to take a political stand.