Watch That Message
Don’t Conflate Scientific Integrity and Innovation
SOURCE: SP
Scientific integrity and scientific innovation aren't necessarily—or always—the same thing. There are important distinctions that must be made if we are to marry sound scientific research with sound science and technology policymaking.
With the 2008 election year drawing near, we may rightly fear that any thoughtful national discussion about the future of American science and innovation could become ensnared in partisan political debate. A little over a year from now, however, the next president of the United States—and the new 111th Congress—will govern a country that funds more research and development than any other nation in the world. Our leaders will have to make critical science policy choices on matters ranging from embryonic stem cell research to global warming—all while trying to preserve U.S. competitiveness in an increasingly challenging and complex global economy.
There is clearly a need to keep the United States competitive with emerging science superpowers such as India and China by inspiring technological innovation-through basic research funding and complementary scientific and economic policies-thereby ensuring economic growth. And then there is the need to restore scientific integrity to the U.S. government after the many science-related scandals that we’ve seen during the Bush administration. Problem is, when progressive politicians outline their policies for science these days, they often conflate the need to protect scientific integrity with the need for scientific innovation.
Problem is, when progressive politicians outline their policies for science these days, they often conflate the need to protect scientific integrity with the need for scientific innovation.
It’s as if they were reading the National Academies’ Rising Above the Gathering Storm report in one hand, and Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason in the other. Or as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) put it in a recent speech: “By ignoring or manipulating science, the Bush administration is putting our future at risk and letting our economic competitors get an edge in the global economy.”
I fully understand the temptation to commingle these two messages. After all, throughout the post-World War II era science has been powerfully defined in this country in terms of its ability to make our lives better by fueling economic growth and innovation. Progressive politicians want to tap into that resonant message. Yet at the same time they also want to discuss science in the context of scandal, and more specifically, the Bush administration’s repeated meddling and interferences with government scientists and, indeed, the dissemination of scientific information itself.
On an intellectual rather than thematic level, however, that conjunction doesn’t always work so well. Consider: “Competitiveness” is a problematic term insofar as we really ought to want science to advance globally, not in any single country. And when it comes to money, scientists always want more public research funding than government can probably give them. It’s more than appropriate for the democratic process to decide where lines ought to be drawn and other priorities pursued with limited resources.
But if scientists wish to make the case for more funding, they should do so on the grounds that it benefits the nation.
These are not integrity issues, which, to my mind, ought to be considered fundamental and non-negotiable. Suppression, misinformation, assaults on free speech and inquiry, deliberate torquing of scientific deliberations—such abuses are simply intolerable in any context. By contrast, when it comes to decisions about how much to invest in scientific research, politicians must make tough choices, legitimately counterbalancing the need to ensure innovation and advancement with many other competing mandates.
In fact, while “scientific innovation” could be said to encompass the funding of a wide range of basic research enterprises across scientific disciplines, “scientific integrity” problems tend to arise only around a relatively small number of highly contested subjects—stem cells, global warming, evolution, and at least in the Bush administration , anything having to do with sex or abortion.
That’s why, when I composed my book The Republican War on Science, I decided I simply could not define any individual failure to fund scientific research—or, any particular redirection of research priorities, such as has occurred at NASA thanks to Bush’s Moon-Mars initiative—as an “abuse” of science. There may be many reasons to support a greater U.S. investment in science—and indeed, I support precisely that—but it isn’t a crime or abuse of power to oppose such investments. To claim otherwise is to make a kind of category error, and to confound illegitimate and legitimate uses of political power.
But hey, we all support science, right? So aren’t I making the perfect the enemy of the good by drawing these distinctions? Well, no. Failure to think clearly about the difference between “science innovation” issues on the one hand, and “scientific integrity” issues on the other, can muddy the waters and leave my own intellectual allies open to attack. I can’t tell you how many times, when discussing scientific integrity issues regarding the Bush administration, I’ve heard the comeback: “But this government supports lots of scientific research funding.”
That’s true, though not at the levels of financing that scientists would like to see. But if scientists wish to make the case for more funding, they should do so on the grounds that it benefits the nation—not that they’re automatically entitled to it, and not that it would be a scandal if they don’t receive it. Drawing such core distinctions between issues of integrity and issues of innovation won’t merely help to keep the message on target. In the long run, those distinctions can only help advance the cause of science—in all of the different spheres where it runs up against the political process.
Chris Mooney is the Washington correspondent for Seed magazine and author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.
Comments on this article