Republican Science: Propaganda, Politics & Downright Lies

When I was in ninth grade, a couple of new physics and chemistry books were introduced in our school - for a very short time. They were published in the USSR and the government of India wanted a few selected high schools to evaluate them for possible future use in Indian classrooms. From a scientific point of view, there was nothing wrong with the text books written in English - they were accurate and adequate. The problem was in their historical narrative. Many of the basic principles of physics and chemistry that we were familiar with, including  Boyle's law, Newton's laws and Avogadro's Number were said to have been discovered by mysterious Russians (with names) around the same time (or a bit earlier) that Boyle, Newton and Avogadro formulated them.  Interestingly enough, there was no similar competitor for Mendeleyev, the designer of the Periodic Table who of course was Russian. My teachers were perturbed enough by the ridiculous communist propaganda in science textbooks that they rejected the books.

Claiming credit for scientific discoveries and inventions to bolster politics is dishonest but falsifying scientific findings to fit one's political and religious beliefs is downright sinister. Beginning with Reagan's Star Wars technology, the Republicans have been inclined to meddle with scientific research. The Bush administration is the worst and most brazen by far.  In its support for Intelligent Design, interference with environmental science research, allowing conservative Christians views to govern matters of sexual behavior and reproductive health of women, the Bush brigade has been frighteningly harmful and dishonest.

Scientific American reports that Senator Richard Durbin (D -IL) has introduced a provision within a funding bill for the department of Health and Human Services that forbids the department from disseminating wrong and misleading information. Although the provision has very little teeth in terms of punishing those who ignore it, its symbolism is breathtaking. What it means is that our government is capable of cooking and distorting scientific data for cynical political ends. Politicians have always tried to manipulate science - promote or dowplay scientific findings to fit their agenda and scientists have always complained about undue political pressure and interference. But complaints against  the Bush adminstration far exceed those against any other administration, so much so that it has become necessary to legislate integrity.

"Tucked inside the current funding bill for the Department of Health and Human Services is a little-noticed provision that regulates how the department handles science and scientific advice. None of the money in the bill can be used "to disseminate scientific information that is deliberately false or misleading," the provision says. And the department cannot ask candidates for its scientific advisory panels to disclose their political affiliation or voting history.

The provision, inserted by Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, represents a tiny victory for critics of the Bush administration, who have become increasingly angry about what they see as the White House's misuse and abuse of science. They charge that the federal government widely dismisses or ignores scientific evidence or even, as one detractor puts it, manufactures uncertainty when the evidence challenges administration positions. Backers hope that, as the first legislation of its kind, the Durbin amendment will lead to broader efforts to regulate the use of science in this and future administrations......

Some of the administration's defenders point out that science and politics have always been strained bedfellows. This administration, they insist, is being unfairly singled out for criticism.

Sheila Jasanoff, a professor of science and technology studies at Harvard University who investigates the use of science in the federal government, disagrees. "Something different is going on in the Bush administration," she claims. Part of the problem is that it attempts to create controversy where none exists. "No matter how good the science is on anything, you can manufacture uncertainty," she says

Durbin's DHHS funding provision expires in September, at the end of the government's fiscal year. But Durbin has separately introduced legislation that tries to ensure that the federal government will avoid meddling with scientific evidence. It would prohibit censorship of research findings, protect whistle-blowers and keep scientific review out of the hands of the White House."

Comments

[Sujatha]

Your comments on the dumbing down of science and other curricula are right on the money.

The extreme right has been trying to ruin our local schools by trying to cut a much-lauded International Baccalaureate program in our community. They've finally backtracked after being threatened with a long and expensive lawsuit, but the problem of non-educators trying to mold the curricula to reflect their extreme right and fundamentalist beliefs hasn't gone away- we have t o continue our vigil against school board hanky-panky.

[Ruchira Paul]

Why were the fundies targeting the Baccalaureate program? I guess anything that challenges students and opens up their minds to independent critical thinking, would be perceived as a threat by those who treat education as mind control.

By the way, did you read that Kaavya Viswanathan may have plagiarised from a second author, Sophie Kinsella? This young woman really wanted a short cut to success.

[Sujatha]

Yes, I saw that report( and more about plagiarism from Princess Diaries, even Salman Rushdie!!!!) Check out the latest comments on my review at Desijournal. The story is getting curiouser and curiouser.

[Sujatha]

And you're right about their real reason for trying to cut the IB, though they labelled it as Anti-American and promoting Marxism. The IB is a framework (not a curriculum per se) which promotes critical and analytical thinking skills, also viewing disciplines from a global vantage point, making connections and correlations between various fields of study- evidently not to the liking of people who prefer their and other children to be blind regurgitators of their own narrow views.

[snaveevans]

Informing students about an opinion or about a group that isn't "in the norm" is in no way "promoting" that opinion or that group's views. It is merely informing, not promoting.

Of course the less that people are educated, the easier they are to control. And isn't it amazing how a number of people of right-wing persuasion like to cut down education, and cut down being educated? As if it is a BAD thing?

When are the fundamentalist Christian conservatives going to get over it and get on with their lives? Sujatha is correct in saying that this stuff isn't going away, and that we need to stay vigilant!