Science is the Stuff of Progress

Science is not optional to the progress and prosperity of the United States, said Jonathan Moreno, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, and Editor-In-Chief of Science Progress. Welcoming visitors to the launch event for the science and technology publication’s inaugural printed edition, he reminded the crowd that the publication’s goal “is to put science back on the public agenda.”An enthusiastic group of scientists, policymakers, and concerned citizens came together last Friday with the same objective and took part in a “science fair” that brought a diverse array of experts together. Drew Baden, chair of the Physics Department at the University of Maryland, discussed the importance of basic research in the physical sciences, as well as international competition for the best researchers. CAP Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy Kit Batten talked about her Ph.D. work as an ecologist and how federal mishandling of science led her to a career in policy. Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, talked about the need for large-scale research on the interrelations between genetic traits, environmental conditions, and health disorders. CAP Senior Fellow Tom Kalil laid out new approaches that the next administration must take to cultivate innovation.

Dr. Neal Lane, Malcolm Gillis University Professor and senior fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and former science advisor to President Bill Clinton, offered a keynote address highlighting three significant challenges for the United States that will require technical solutions: climate change and rising global demands for energy; the competitiveness of American business and industry; and affordable and effective health care.

“Looking forward, the quality of our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren in the 21^st century will depend on the U.S. continuing to be a leader in science and technology,” he said, adding that he believes that leadership is well within the grasp of the United States, but it is not a given. “Our success will depend on America making many of the new discoveries and new inventions,” he said, “but it will also depend on how we use that technology to deal with a host of serious problems that threaten Americans, and in some cases billions of people around the globe.”

The room erupted in applause when Lane said that the federal government must restore the public’s trust in the integrity of science. Scientific information cannot be used to spread dogma, he said. He stressed that government websites and publications must provide accurate information, government scientists must be able to speak openly, and only qualified individuals should serve on advisory committees. “I never thought I would put those down as bullets in a talk,” he lamented. “It seemed very obvious to me.”

The “science fair” presenters gathered after the keynote for a panel discussion moderated by R. Alta Charo, Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law & Bioethics, University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. Baden spoke about the need to direct federal funding not just to support research, but to the laboratory infrastructure at public universities that cannot otherwise keep up with the more lavish facilities of private schools. Without good labs, he said, these schools lose talent to the wealthier schools. Building on ideas in Lane’s keynote, Kalil talked about the need to increase funding high-risk, transformative research, early-career researchers, and long-term projects.

Addressing the issue of ethical approaches to scientific research, Hudson argued that the United States must rethink the structure of clinical drug trials. In her opinion, drug researchers are too focused on “protecting” their subjects from the science, rather than communicating with them and addressing their concerns. Batten also emphasized the necessity of effective science communication, this time between scientists and policymakers, citing as a prime concern the Bush administration’s regressive policies regarding climate change.

Charo identified a common thread running through the concerns of all the participants: the dilemma of basing policy on “truth,” when politicians can manipulate the concept into something that no longer resembles the truth of scientists. “Scientists talk in terms of hypotheses and probabilities,” she pointed out, whereas “politics and law tends to move on the assumption that the case is ‘X’ and we need to base a policy on it.” But troubles arise over who gets to own that truth, she said. In light of the inherent uncertainly of science, she explained, the United States has seen the difference in the treatment of truth used to delay necessary policies, as in the case of global warming. She also pointed to political manipulations of truth that have been used to “justify absolute falsehoods” as in the case of the Terri Schiavo controversy and battles over reproductive rights. She added that “nationally, we’ve seen it blurring the definition of science in the continued attempts to introduce creationism and so-called ‘Intelligent Design’ into the school system.”

Rick Weiss, CAP Senior Fellow and former science reporter for the Washington Post, closed the event, arguing that science must trump the superstitions that lead to uninformed policies on issues like contraception, sex education, and drug abuse. “Imagine what the world would be like if reason and evidence were really the currency of the day.” Science, he reemphasized, is crucial to solving the most pressing issues in environmental protection, health care, food security, and climate change, but equally important is the effective communication of science that will drive sound policymaking.

To watch video of the entire event, visit the CAP events page.

Tags: funding, scientific integrity, scientific literacy

Comments on this article

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.