A good example of the politicized state of science policy which has existed for decades and is only now being challenged can be found in this brief and thoughtless NYT article which accuses the Bush administration of politicizing science.

The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.

The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations.

What the writer, James Glanz, fails to mention is that the Union of Concerned Scientists is a radical leftist organization that has "systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad" for as long as it has existed. That's it's sole purpose. It is nothing but a political organization. It has lost influence since its political agenda conflicts with the current administration (though it was also kept at arm's length by previous administrations) but also because the pseudo-science positions it has advocated have a very poor record. They are very political and minimally competent, as is so often the case.

We need to understand that the politicization of science happened decades ago and that current hysterical accusations that science is only now being politicized result from depoliticization, an attempt to separate science from policy, and a loss of prestige and influence for the ossified advocacy establishment that accreted during those decades.

This is a good thing. As noted in several earlier posts ^{1, 2, 3, 4} the clumsy attempt by politicized scientists to dominate policy positions was a resounding failure. They lacked a useful grasp of human social and economic behavior, a failing that crippled their efforts, but even worse they lacked a grasp of the science issues that were the supposed basis of their policy efforts. They exaggerated the science and substituted their irrational human fears for scientific analysis, so betraying science too.

In science practice these failings aren't a problem. Every scientist is always wrong about everything, and at some level knows it, though they will champion their views in the parry and thrust of debate. When shown to be wrong by better science the ideal scientific stance is to celebrate new discoveries though they utterly refute your life work since what matters is truth rather than personal prestige. You soldier on knowing that you are wrong but that tomorrow you will know more. Life is good and there is an inexhaustible task to engage your full intellect forever. But in governance these failings are severe flaws which are severely punished. Policy errors have real consequences. We need only consider the degraded forests, famines and epidemics of recent history to see that this is so.

The current depoliticization of science policy is driven by two objectives.

One objective is redirection of national policy away from the authoritarian leftist stance acquired during the latter half of the twentieth century. Times have changed. Such views are the antiquated remnants of the naive thinking of that era. They worked poorly and are contrary to best practices as they are currently understood. The whole world is moving away from that approach as we come to understand better methods. Great Societies, Great Leaps Forward, 1,000 year Reichs, revolution and all the other fantasies are thoroughly discredited.

Now we stick to the knitting, make small advances steadily, expand the franchise and full suffrage to a larger proportion of society, and encourage everyone to engage with life, to live well by doing well and so create a virtuous circle of increasing returns. The steam age has been displaced by the information age. Command and control has been replaced by peer-to peer. Optimal systems are no longer admired or sought, resilient systems are preferred. Well being is an emergent property of healthy systems rather than an engineered result. Diversity of approach and implementation has replaced single solution conformity. Subsidarity has replaced centrality because it works better and faster. When clever primates are allowed to use their ingenuity the discovery machine functions better.

A second objective is to increase the separation between science and policy for the good of both. Science is hampered by political considerations and policy is an inherently multi-disciplinary activity that must balance the narrow truths of many views to develop positions that accommodate them all at least in part. Perhaps this can be understood by analogy to the relationship of the military to policy. The military cannot be allowed to dominate national policy though they are the experts in their field since policy is much more than military truth. Similarly, economists and lawyers cannot be given undue influence. Expertise in a field is insufficient qualification for policy control. But it isn't only that domain experts make poor policy, it is also that the attempt to do so degrades their efforts within their domains. Science is hurt by involvement with politics as much as politics is hurt by excessive influence of scientists.

As the election season progresses we hear more strident and extreme accusations from those who are losing. The UCS and the NYT have been losing for some time and fear continued losses. Their politics have been increasingly rejected and their professional credentials questioned as a result of repeated failures. They accuse others of their own sins in an attempt to shift blame and rehabilitate themselves. The current degraded state of science and science policy will be improved by disregarding the pressures of these organizations.

The current administration is doing some of the right things though not for pure motives. Part of their motivation comes from their different political views and part comes from the necessity to govern since they currently have that job and will be held accountable for their acts in a way that scientists and out-of-power politicians are not. Freedom is tempered by responsibility for those who hold power as it is not for pretenders. If a new administration from a different party comes to power the task remains the same but the special interests such as UCS that are now attacking will expect rewards. The spoils of victory will, as ever, be distributed and as is so often the case governance is degraded. It would be better to refute politicized pseudo-science advocacy groups from all sides and let the political battles be fought on more sensible policy issues.

We have the example of the muddled state of European science and governance as experience data to improve our affective forecasting accuracy, to help us see the wisdom of rejecting politicized science before the US falls to the same level. In Europe people do not trust scientists or government since they have been repeatedly afflicted with disease and defeat when following the prescriptions of the state-science establishment. Arrogant scientists have directed gullible politicians to implement foolish policies repeatedly. These authoritarian societies labor under the delusion that a panel of experts can get it right and so placed their faith in them as they once did their kings and priests. Same result.

Reality isn't like that. Every panel of experts is wrong and the more leveraged their projects the more damage they do. Real scientists always equivocate, emphasize unknowns, hesitate to project long range or guarantee results because they know that they lack both the depth and breadth of knowledge to formulate policy. That's what political leaders are paid to do. They make decisions with insufficient information. Good decisions are modest, hedged, modifiable and avoid lock-ins.

Rejecting strident advocacy groups claiming scientific certainty to justify their radical policies is good for both governance and science. Allowing scientists to waffle with dignity as their profession requires rather than requiring them to bluster and inflate their guesses to appear decisive would make better science available for decision makers. Allowing political leaders to make decisions that balance the counsel of all their advisors - economic, scientific, political, legal etc. - would result in better governance.