Chris Mooney continues his silly political attacks on the current administration as "anti-science" noted earlier in Witch Hunts. He has a political bias and a book to sell but is not making useful commentary about science. I noted earlier that...

Mooney carries on in the political tradition of the environmental "movement", using popular media to advance theses not supported by science. Mooney isn't unique or unusual in this, many are far worse, he's just a well known example for blog readers. His primary method is to claim "consensus" for his political views and attack opponents credentials while evading their arguments. It is, in other words, pure politics untainted by science. He selects his data points to support his politics and dismisses all else. There is no debate of evidence...

Gullible and uninformed pundits such as Tyler Cowen regularly parrot Mooney's nonsense on their blogs.

Chris is the guy who keeps us all honest when it comes to politics and science.

No. Science isn't politics and those such as Mooney that fail to make this distinction degrade both science and politics, harming society. There are many "science writers" and even "scientists" that participate in this degrading spectacle and they do so from all political orientations. Naifs such as Cowen believe one or another based on the political spin. Science is irrelevant to their views.

In this Mooney post boosting John Kerry he quotes a media article by an economist to support his attacks on the Bush administration for being "anti-science".

All the current Democratic aspirants to the White House have whacked Bush for undermining our alliances and diplomatic capabilities through his unilateralism. A few, including Sen. John Kerry, have criticized the president as "anti-science." But none seems to have understood--or at least articulated--the disastrous economic consequences of these Know-Nothing views. In the post-1990s global economy, America must aggressively compete with other developed countries for the international talent that can spur new industries and new jobs. By thumbing our nose at the world and dismissing the consensus views of the scientific community, we are scaring off that talent and sending it to our competitors.

This is pure politics. "Consensus" is invoked as in Mooney's shabby arguments to justify political spin. There is no discussion of relevant issues or relevant science, simply an appeal to the authoritarian and submissive impulses shared by his fellow travelers. The few data points cited are carefully selected to avoid contrary information.

Dredge your own memory for catch phrases you have been infected with in recent years. How about "brain drain", the accusation by other developed economies as well as newly developing countries that the US was sucking the vitality out of their nations by cherry picking the best and brightest among them by bribing them with fat pay packets and research grants? This happens both for industrial R&D departments and university staff.

There are few researchers, engineers or technicians that seek employment in other nations because they must due to US policy and the US is still "draining the brains" out of both developed and developing nations. There are many other reasons ranging from increasing employment opportunities in those nations as they develop and compete for talent to more personal reasons such as patriotism or a sense of duty to assist in development.

As human beings why should we object? Why wouldn't we celebrate the fact that other nations are participating more fully in scientific and technological development? The development and prosperity of other nations is a condition of continuing development and prosperity for all as well as being a humanist moral requirement.

Mooney cavils a bit on his attack by reluctantly admitting that there are good and valid economic and policy reasons rooted in changes in other countries for their active recruiting of talent, but insists nonetheless that his own political views are shared by others and are the main reasons.

As other nations become more attractive to mobile immigrant talent, America is becoming less so...

Why would talented foreigners avoid us? In part, because other countries are simply doing a better, more aggressive job of recruiting them. The technology bust also plays a role. There are fewer jobs for computer engineers, and even top foreign scientists who might still have their pick of great cutting-edge research positions are less likely than they were a few years ago to make millions through tech-industry partnerships.

But having talked to hundreds of talented professionals in a half dozen countries over the past year, I'm convinced that the biggest reason has to do with the changed political and policy landscape in Washington.

Mooney's convictions are without value to any but fellow travelers and contribute to the larger issue of politicization of science. Mooney is guilty of the sins he accuses others of committing. This sort of confused hypocrisy has increased in recent decades. Mooney's shrill objections are not that science is being newly politicized so much as that the politics are less appealing to him than before. When we unpack his argument it resolves to nothing but a political argument devoid of scientific content.

I see this as a good thing. The government-science complex had become so politicized in the past that many extremely bad policies were formulated and enacted into law. These bad policies served mainly to bolster the political views of the dominant factions but did not serve society well. Some of that has been and is continuing to be undone by changes in the political landscape in recent years. It takes a long time to undo the damage of decades since regulatory agencies and universities were packed with fellow travelers during those years and those time servers are still there. Once institutions become severely biased the bias is reinforced by self-selection as those with dissenting views choose other occupations where they won't be marginalized.

We should be encouraged by these trends and developments. The deconstruction phase we are currently experiencing opens and depoliticizes science by reducing or eliminating the incentives for politicized science. If this trend continues there will come a time when it goes too far, when science is repoliticized in keeping with the views of the new majorities. If and when this becomes likely we need to oppose that too. If we become clear about the damaging effects to science and society of using science as a wedge for political gain (as Mooney is so clearly doing) we can eliminate the incentives that currently motivate scientific misconduct for political and economic gain. Scientists are humans and have ideological views like all others. They will never be objective. But the science establishment can be ideologically neutral and expose instances of scientific misconduct before they affect policy.

It is societies' task to protect science since they have the money and the power to either degrade the scientific community through political incentive or shield it from such destructive influences. The history of science is filled with political and ideological meddling with the advance of knowledge but the past century is particularly instructive. From Lysenkoist biology and the resultant politicized degradation of Soviet science to anti-DDT absolutism and the continuing deaths of millions of developing world people the baleful effects of politics on science continue. From the nuclear winter hoax of Sagan to the Kyoto hoax of the IPCC it continues.

Science does not tell us what to do. It can't. It can tell us only what has been discovered and that is always contingent, partial, disputed and provisional. Scientists are not authorities. A "consensus" of a gaggle of scientists is not authoritative. We have to act like adults and decide on policies based on weak evidence in scientific matters as in all other areas.

When authoritarians such as the proponents of brainless policies such as Kyoto seek to squander huge resources and warp society using the "authority" of politicized science we must not only refuse to allow it, we must name and shame the proponents for their disservice to humanity. They are willing to damage science and society for political gain and ideological domination. Their policies would do nothing to affect climate but would empower an authority to make minute decisions about social behavior and impose crippling costs on the world. This is their real objective.

Similarly, the anti-DDT and anti-GE absolutists along with all the creeps, cranks, Luddites, creationists etc. ad nauseum have a right to their views and play a useful role in society but they must not be allowed to dominate science. Self rule is the only valid social arrangement and so policy will be determined by these and other non-scientific motives, but science should be insulated from their beliefs. It is in all of our interests to defend science. We may approve of the way science is currently warped by politics but we will not be so happy when the tables turn and our opponents gain control. Live by the sword...