One of the themes here has been the politicization of science, especially the natural sciences that affect the environment. One of the issues in that theme has been the belated focus this subject has been given by environmentalists, and then only to attack the Bush administration. Among the worst offenders has been the Union of Concerned Scientists, and lately the science writer Chris Mooney who has finally published his long threatened book on the subject titled, wait for it, "The Republican War on Science".

It's good that the politicization of science has become a front burner topic, but the attempts of Democratic activists such as the UCS (i.e. Paul Ehrlich and company) and Mooney are backfiring. When intellectually honest people focus on the subject, especially when supplied with information by opponents of the Democrats, it becomes clear to all that there is not only nothing new about the politicization of science, but that the Democrats invented the modern version of the game and have played it with vigor for decades.

We should all be concerned about this no matter if we are red, blue or purple since it degrades policy and governance. It deprives society of its life blood - information. A self ruled society is absolutely dependent on good information to achieve its purposes. More interestingly perhaps, only a self ruled and engaged society can use good information to achieve high purposes because of the knowledge problem, the certainty that information will be filtered and delayed as it percolates from points of origin up to central decision makers. They will make their central decisions based on partial information that is outdated in any event. There's no way that they can ingest the fire hose volume of information produced much less do it in real time.

For detailed discussion of these subjects see Mental Tools, which discusses the blunders of systems thinking as applied by activists such as the infamous and failed Club of Rome school of thought, and the late life realization by some of them, such as Donnela Meadows, that they had blown it, had been seduced by the imagined power of planning coupled with their unexamined political views. Also see Situation Normal which discusses the SNAFU principle, explained by Julian Sanchez.

Readers of Robert Anton Wilson will be familiar with what he's called the SNAFU Principle: Because subordinates tend to tell superiors what they want to hear, the higher up any hierarchical ladder you go, the more distorted the picture becomes. The person with the most authority in the system will likely be the most ignorant—even when it isn't George W. Bush.

There are many other posts here that deal with aspects of this issue. If you are interested digging in the archives may be mildly rewarding and provide you with links to useful material.

It is worth noting that the incentive to politicize science comes from the centralization of power. That's why this is a dispute at the national level and also why politicized scientists are so upset. This Daniel Smith article in NYT magazine notes that:

. . . the administration's decision to limit federal funds for embryonic-stem-cell research four years ago -- a move that many scientists worry has severely hampered one of the most fruitful avenues of biomedical inquiry to come along in decades -- resulted in a shift in the dynamics of financing, from the federal government to the states and private institutions.

I doubt it. I suspect that the shift from federal funding to states and private institutions will greatly increase the rate of discovery, just as having many other nations doing research increases progress. As an enthusiast for stem cell research of all kinds, embryonic and adult, I see this as a great good thing.

Smith notes the other issue that has driven politicized scientists into a frenzy.

In March 2001, the White House abruptly withdrew its support for the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. . .

This isn't quite right, there was never much support, and more importantly there was no support in congress. The president is not the king or the premier. His power is checked and balanced by other branches of government.

This is also a good thing. The Kyoto protocol is a crushingly stupid and utterly ineffective response to rising CO2 concentrations. The more you actually care about climate change the more you ought to oppose Kyoto. Boy George, for whatever reasons, has done two very good things in withdrawing the US government from stem cell research funding and Kyoto. Good for society that is, but worrisome for politicized scientists. Smith notes:

. . . all administrations, according to Daniel Sarewitz, a former Congressional staff member and director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, seek to some extent to mold scientific evidence to fit their political agendas. But scientists like Gottfried contend that the ''scope and intensity'' of the episodes under Bush are unprecedented. . .

Whatever hopes scientists harbored for [John H. Marburger III, the president's science adviser], however, were dealt a severe blow after the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report in February of last year charging that the administration's political agenda had permeated ''the traditionally objective, nonpartisan mechanisms through which the government uses scientific knowledge in forming and implementing public policy.'' A petition appended to the report and signed by more than 60 pre-eminent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates -- among them Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health -- accused the administration of ''systematically'' manipulating scientific findings. There were those who hoped that Marburger would tender his resignation in a show of solidarity; instead, he emerged in defense of the administration, claiming that the U.C.S. report was ''wrong and misleading'' and insisting that his employers had applied ''the highest scientific standards in decision making.'' These statements alienated many scientists (Howard Gardner, a Harvard cognitive psychologist, went so far as to call Marburger a ''prostitute'' on National Public Radio), and the protests quickly grew more partisan. In June 2004, 48 Nobelists released a letter endorsing John Kerry

Right, as if the UCS ever intended anything but a Kerry endorsement. The problem is that scientists who are Democratic political activists have lost influence. That every administration has a fact bending agenda is obvious, but Bush is blunt. He dismissed the rascals, and rejected their nonsense policies. Kyoto was no longer just left to die of starvation in the front hall as Clinton had done, Bush had the moribund carcass removed and strangled because he tired of the stench of death in the house.

Though I dislike politics in general and mislike most every president (though I kind of liked Bill even though he was a louse) I have to give Bush credit for doing good things on some issues that matter to me. (I think he was wrong on the war, but I didn't have a better plan either). The things he has done that upset the politicized scientists seem like good things for science and society, however much they upset the indentured scientists. The dynamic I see is something like happened with the Human Genome Project. A bunch of leather assed bureaucratic scientists had intended to milk that project for their whole lives, make it their career, take 15-20 years to complete a first draft. Then along came a maniac with private money and new ideas and set the world on fire. In a couple of years we have three versions of the genome and the rate of discovery has sky rocketed.

Getting stem cell research out of federal hands, and getting CO2 mitigation out of federal and even international hands, has the same potential dynamic. I expect progress on both issues to be much faster now. When we look at the issues rather than the whining of politicized bureaucratic scientists the picture is completely different. It not only doesn't cheese me off that those scientists are upset, I'm kind of glad. They aren't useful or important and the science community is degraded by their power and influence. Anything that disempowers them is good for all of us.

When we step back from the empty nonsense of politcal conflicts - the only thing that matters to wankers like Mooney and the UCS - and look at the science issues, the whole thesis of Republican war on science evaporates. Republicans, like Democrats, have an agenda and will skew things as much as they can to hold power and appease their supporters. This is reason to reduce their power, not to prefer one party above another. When we add in the limitations of centralizing power and information the case becomes overwhelming. Neither side can be trusted to even try to do right, and they couldn't do right if they wanted to. The structure of the system is broken. The incentives are wrong, the mechanics are wrong, the ideas are nonsense.

Science is important. As a society we face increasing need for improved technologies and breakthrough science. The pace of change in external pressures, such as climate change and population growth in the developing world, is increasing. It is in all our interests, the whole world's interest, to do effective management that enables the rate of discovery to increase. Getting the politcal whackos out of science would help. Refuting them now will help. Refocusing public attention on science rather than politics will help. Relieving the federal government strangle hold on funding will help. Opening scientific archives to the public will help. Making effective use of ICT to speed publication and review of papers will help. In general, everything that empowers every individual scientist and enthusiast helps. Cross disciplinary communication helps. Networked, as opposed to star topologies, in information flow helps.