Roger Pielke Jr. has written a lot about the politicization of science. He even wrote a book, The Honest Broker, that explores the theme and makes recommendations. (No, I haven't bought it . . . yet, but I intend to do so.) He points to an article by Paul Starobin that deals with the issue in part.

He appropriately finds that the pathological politicization of science occurs on both the left and the right, but astutely also recognizes that the scientific establishment itself bears some responsibility for today’s hyper-politicization of science:

. . . the modern professional research scientist is not, by any stretch, a blameless figure -- in this tale, that scientist emerges as an increasingly partisan and self-interested figure, dependent on government grants and largely an inhabitant of Blue America.

Starobin does a nice job characterizing how science is used as a tool of politics from the political Left and Right. He registers complaints similar to those that we have expressed about those who would politicize the politicization of science by labeling it only a problem of the Right, or at least, only a problem worth worrying about from the Right. Starobin expresses plenty of concern across the political spectrum, which will likely inevitably mean that his analysis will be dismissed by most partisan observers. But this is good news as the side he aligns with is that of science and democracy.

Starobin's article, Who Turned Out The Enlightenment?, sees this as a betrayal of our core principles.

How did this sorry state of affairs come to pass? It's quite a saga. The trajectory starts with the time of the Founders -- an Age of Enlightenment. Science, for the most part, flourishes as American democracy matures, but then begins to suffer sustained assaults stemming from the post-1960s culture wars and the rising clout of industry interests in the money-driven arena of politics. But the modern professional research scientist is not, by any stretch, a blameless figure -- in this tale, that scientist emerges as an increasingly partisan and self-interested figure, dependent on government grants and largely an inhabitant of Blue America.

Although it is tempting to think that today's controversies are a passing phase, probably the opposite is true. For one thing, the biotechnology revolution, at the heart of many of today's battles, is itself in its infancy. And the idea, espoused by some politicians and judges, that money in politics deserves essentially the same constitutional protections as speech can continue to nourish efforts to discredit science by one imperiled business interest or another.

So we may be only at the start of an epoch of contentiousness. At stake is science's relationship to society -- and even more than that, what used to be known in America, without irony, as the liberal tradition, the tradition grounded in the Enlightenment itself of being open-minded. These days, it all sounds rather quaint.

Brad Allenby (It's a two-fer, you get Pielke and Allenby in the same post!) asks a different question: Who’s Driving the Bus?

Recent columns have argued that science and technology, especially in the environmental fields, have become necessarily and unalterably normative, and that nothing less than a fundamental re-imagining of the Enlightenment is required if humanity is to respond ethically and rationally to the challenges of the Anthropocene.

While Pielke seeks an honest broker Allenby muses about the implications of a struggle between competing, and fundamentally dishonest, brokers.

It might help ground this discussion, then, to return to one of the more fundamental issues of concern to many environmentalists from the perspective of science as normative discourse: the "biodiversity crisis." A previous column noted that what appears to be an extinction crisis if only evolutionary biodiversity is considered, may in fact simply be a cusp as the source of biodiversity shifts from natural evolution to human design, and that reductions in information content in biological systems resulting from extinctions of evolved life forms may be balanced by creation of new information content as new bioengineered life forms are designed and commercialized.

Whether this dynamic is indeed at work is obviously in part a very complicated factual question. But it is more than that: it is a cultural and a political power question as well. In this regard, perhaps the most interesting question is: what group gets to define the cultural construct of biodiversity, and why does it matter? As it turns out, it matters a lot: the community that controls the definition controls social perception of the phenomenon, with significant distributional implications. . .

This emphasizes the importance of understanding what community lies behind the concepts that drive modern environmental science, and what their constructions, perceptual frameworks, and mental models are. Such communities not only explore facts, but create cultural constructs which reflect far more than facts, and which in turn are reified in the structure of the science and public perception, and thus policy responses. This matters because most cultural constructs change existing distributions of costs and benefits (else, of course, they are not needed); thus, the community that creates such a construct is able to redistribute costs and benefits across society in line with their belief systems.

That seems right, and it sheds some light on Pielke's concerns. The dire and increasing politicization of science may grow far worse because the stakes are so high. It is a struggle between competing mental models for control of our future. Pielke will remain a voice in the wilderness, urging the delinquent children to play nice. He's an important voice since all of the children are delinquents with no intention of playing nice. By noting the crimes committed on all sides rather than choosing sides and becoming part of the problem he provides a useful perspective for those of us more interested in good outcomes than in advancing some ideology.

I think that Starobin's perceptions are valid but that his interpretation is naive. The Enlightenment hasn't been turned out, it has been overshadowed. It's still there, is still a core principle, but there are filters that color and diffuse the light. Rather than a bright illumination we now have mood lighting. I also think that this has always been so. When we say "the Enlightenment" we have compressed a wide variety of thoughts from a broad geographic area into a single notion and expression. This conceals what might now be seen as Allenby's struggle for control of the future. It was happening right from the start. The contingent and fallibilist views of the Scottish, English and American enlightenments differed greatly from the absolutist views of the French and German enlightenments. It's enlightenments not enlightenment.