One of the most infuriating phrases you’ll hear is “I’m not a scientist, BUT…” This usually precedes some appallingly ill-informed dismissal of a scientific opinion that only people who are scientists would be qualified to make. In a rational world, the only context in which we would ever hear this phrase would be “I’m not a scientist, BUT… here’s someone who is a scientist so I’ll shut up while they talk.” Unfortunately, it seems we don’t live in a rational world.
Since global society is built on science and billions would die if that carpet was pulled from under our feet, it’s probably a good thing that the US House of Representatives has a permanent committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Who should be in a group tasked with such monumentally important oversight? Apparently, people who don’t understand science and think it should be shoehorned into an ideological mold instead of the other way around. When the new Congress starts in 2015 they’ll be bringing back the same fine folks who’ve formed the Science Committee for the last two years, but this time with the Congressional votes to give their flamboyant idiocy some teeth. To get your blood boiling this month we bring you a look at five of the people who decide how our national science budget is spent, their dismal understanding of the subject they’ll control, and their already appalling plans for what they’ll do. Get ready to get livid… and scared.
UPDATE 1/13/2015 – Our apologies, but we just can’t keep up with reality. This is a true story, reported by UPI.
Let’s start with some words from some of the committee members. Remember, these aren’t citizens-at-large or even general Congress members- these are the people on the actual Science and Technology Committee.
Paul Broun (R- GA)- “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.” (Thankfully, Paul lost his re-election bid and won’t be back in 2015)
Mo Brooks (R- AL)- “I’m also old enough to remember when the same left-wing part of our society was creating a global cooling scare in order to generate funds for their pet projects. So 30-some years ago the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained that [topic], they shifted to global warming. So I’m approaching the issue with a healthy degree of skepticism. If the evidence is there to prove it, then so be it.”
Jim Sensenbrenner (R- IL)- doesn’t believe Earth is warming (he thinks it’s been cooling over the past 10 years) but he does believe Mars is warming at a similar rate to Earth, which isn’t warming at all. He believes global warming will help crop yields go up, making it “easier to feed 7 billion people”. Sensenbrenner also rejects the fact that genetics influence weight, telling the obese to “Look in the mirror because you are the one to blame.”
Dana Rohrbacher (R- CA) “In my lifetime there’s been no greater example of this threat…than the insidious coalition of research science and political largess, a coalition that has conducted an unrelenting crusade to convince the American People that their health and safety, and yes the very survival of our planet, is at risk due to man-made global warming. The purpose of this greatest of all propaganda campaigns is to enlist public support for, if not just acquiescence to, dramatic mandated change of our society, and to our way of life.” See also Dana’s “dinosaur flatulence” theory.
And now, please meet returning chairman Lamar Smith. He has his own problems with science, one of the many politicians who’s convinced that climate change is a scam. However, Lamar’s not here for his shining ignorance… he’s here to tell us what Science will look like in the hands of political hacks and scientific incompetents who will run it. If you haven’t surfed over to the Science Committee website lately (and who has?) then you may not know what science looks like these days. The website’s rotating banner has 5 slides. The first three are “Map shows EPA land grab”, “Committee approves bill to probibit EPA from using secret science”, and “Future to NSF: Stop wasting money.” The other two slides are links to a live interview with astronauts (Lamar’s quote on the subject- “Space inspires future generations to dream big and work hard.”) and a plea to follow the demise of science on Twitter.
Lamar is pushing two showpiece bills . The first, “The High Quality Research Act”, would change the way the National Science Foundation allocates research money, making it justify grants according to standards set by Congress. The second, the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2014”, would make it harder for the EPA to use the expertise of academic scientists, but easier to use that of industry-affiliated ones. We’ll just focus on the NSF funding bill, because that should be enough to make you apoplectic on its own…
Scientific research gets about two thirds of its funding from the research and development departments of private industry, about a third from the government (through universities and specialized departments), and a very small percentage from charitable foundations. Most of the government funding is distributed by the National Science Foundation, which for years has been the gold standard for science funding around the world. Since it’s been working fine, Lamar wants to fix it. He wants the NSF to certify, before any award, that the research is
1) “… in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science;
2) “… the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and
3) “… not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.”
Sounds good, but a person competent in science wouldn’t have come up with that list. Why? Science covers, and NSF funds, far more than these narrow areas. It is impossible to tell in advance which fields of research will yield the next breakthroughs, new industries, or life-changing technologies, and it’s criminally stupid to restrict science in this way. They wouldn’t help the advancement of science at all, but what these rules would do is give Congress (and the Pubs) control over what science gets funded. Don’t like the science of climate change? Just don’t fund it!
Now, we aren’t scientists, BUT… here are people who are scientists (and a couple non-scientists) so we’ll shut up while they talk…
Mandating Scientific Discovery Never Works– Lawrence Krauss, physicist and cosmologist, Arizona State University
The House of Representatives Committee on Science is turning into a national embarrassment– Ashutosh Jogalekar in Scientific American magazine
U.S. Lawmaker Proposes New Criteria for Choosing NSF Grants– Jeffrey Mervis in Science, the magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
What Representative Lamar Smith Is Really Trying to Do at NSF– Jeffrey Mervis in Science, the magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Battle between NSF and House science committee escalates: How did it get this bad?– Jeffrey Mervis in Science, the magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Letter from Eddie Bernice Johnson to Lamar Smith re: NSF Funding
Taking Research for Granted- Texas Republican Lamar Smith continues his crusade against independence in science– Tim McDonnell in Slate Magazine
Lamar Smith, GOP Push Politicization Of Scientific Research– Michael McAuliff and Ryan Grim, Huff Post Politics
