More Bob Stapler.

This week’s report veers wildly into the realm of science . . . sort of.  It begins with a visit to my regular doctor regarding a back injury.  My doc is a couple of years my junior, meaning we are roughly shaped by the same events and experiences.  So, while making chit-chat, he (not unnaturally) assumed, as a fellow technocrat (knows I read a lot of hard stuff) living in the same 90% socialist enclave within a 70% Democrat voting state, that I’d share his brand of politics. This otherwise intelligent and highly scientific gentleman (he’s a very good doctor) frankly admits his political opinion is guided less by what he knows of current candidates and issues than by his brand of politics: pacifism, Bush loathing, “mess made by the present bunch,” and what he considers rational principles (e.g., politicians are equally corrupt, ergo err on the side of "scientific" socialism – which I presume he expects will control said corruption and eliminate bungling).

I avoided getting into deep discussion as I was in a lot of pain and not up to a debate (also because it might upset him just as he was prescribing potentially harmful drugs).  When asked about Sarah Palin and her acceptance speech, I stuck to a vaguely worded statement: “She is certainly exciting the conservative base and likely to attract more women and independents, perhaps enough to put McCain over the top.”  Even this much support disturbed and offended him enough to counter Palin as more likely to alienate than appeal to women, and could not imagine women still upset over Obama "stealing" Hillary’s coronation.  I briefly considered setting him straight, but decided neither of us really had time for a contest of wits (shows you just how bad I was hurting!).  Even without this discussion, we can safely assume that within his thinking-box: a) all women support feminist doxology, b) women who do, shouldn’t be so angry that Palin would induce them to "betray their sex" and party, and c) there aren’t enough right-wing extremist and wrong-minded undecided voters in the world that it matters.  This got me to thinking (not for the first time) just how many 1960s drank-the-Kool-Aid, out-of-touch, technical people of my generation there are who accept the most blatant and toxic nonsense without ever bothering to check facts, who then charge into the voting booth convinced of the good fight (against the vast-right-wing-conspiracy), only to be befuddled by dysfunctional results.  This week’s report, then, is a collage of the "liberal-minded-scientist," a breed of animal both rational and irrational.

Obligatory Weasely Disclaimer

Before anyone gets the idea I am down on scientists and the medical profession, let me say I am sort of one of them (low-order techie) and have utmost respect for those with advanced degrees – within their areas of expertise.  Outside this highly specialized expertise, they are no more omniscient or wise than the next chap, and often suffer a greater hubris from the excess of reverence given them.  I pick on doctors and scientists only to illustrate how even intelligent people get swept up by errant, emotionally-loaded nonsense.  Furthermore, as doctors and scientists work in highly structured (aka, "socialized") systems subject to narrow codes of conduct, they tend to think this the norm and anything else as untidy.  Thus, they prefer structure to the chaos, which carries over into political thinking.  They see the world as in need of regulation to rein in things like injury, the spread of disease, poverty, and the abuse of invention, never realizing the control gained is at the expense of freedom, and usually too busy to give the politics they support proper consideration.  This is no where more evident than questions of socialized-healthcare (most healthcare workers agree more is better), abortion, the environment, and war (the "Great Satan" to those allied against as an assault on the body human).

For reasons of brevity, I will, hereafter, lump leftist scientists, physicians, engineers, and assorted elite technologists together under the broad heading: liberal-scientist.

* * *

For my first example of wobbly scientist we go to Minnesota Public Radio and Dr. Peter Agre, a Nobel winner who during the 2004 election was so convinced Bush was anti-science he launched a personal campaign of animosity against him.  Dr. Agre, a provably intelligent scientist, nonetheless unreasonably accused Bush of opposing science using the Patriot Act, spending too little on research, ignoring the "evidence" of global-warming, and "politicizing" science.  Agre’s argument had nothing to do with violating personal liberties of scientists to pursue legitimate objects; only with control over who gets to decide the direction of science the government pays them to research.  Science grants come with a string attached that they are the property and for the purposes of a patron; in this case, government.  Apparently, it never occurred to Agre (and a good many like him) that it is he who politicizes science when he takes such strong stands based on weak science, weaker logic, misconstructions of obligation, and leftist rant.  He also seems to think the interests of scientists take priority over the interests of a whole people.  At war or peace, science takes a backseat to defense; and government has a legitimate interest in controlling access to technologies with a significant potential to endanger lives and/or compromise security.  Each administration brings with it a different set of priorities; and, if Bush’s priorities are less generous of taxpayer dollars than Agre would have them, perhaps that’s because they are the priorities of the majority who elected him (an idea still eluding the Left).  Were Bush, instead, to bow to an unelected minority, no matter how "scientific," he’d be derelict in his duty to those who did elect him that he might do "their" bidding.  Were Bush “manipulating science” to misrepresent its results, as Agre claims, I might be in somewhat greater agreement with him, but he does not show that.  And, as David Guston prosaically remarks, science is “deeply political” with both sides “viewing business as usual through a lens fractured along partisan lines.”  Politics is often about managing change, and nothing changes things quite as much as science.

In "Who is Politicizing Science, Senator Clinton?," Logan Gage points out it is just as much politicizing science to support a given policy as to oppose one; and conferring support says nothing regarding the quality, value, virtue or risks of the science.  Regardless, over at Red-Orbit, the opinion remains unshaken it is politicizing only when non-scientists meddle in what gets funded, and concluding "the problem" is a lack of transparency and accountability in government.  Well, isn’t "that" putting the shoe on the other foot!  Government does the buying, but scientists get to choose the work and use accountability as their means of extortion (i.e., let us do what we want and push our agenda or we make it political).

In my next example, we find engineer/scientist Stephen Salter asking government to pay him to build boondoggle spray-ships he says will reverse global-warming.  Let’s suppose for the sake of argument there is some substance to both AGW and injecting saltwater into the troposphere will increase cloud cover sufficient to reduce the solar flux enough to offset warming.  New Scientist News says this is a long shot requiring 100,000 turbines (1,500 robot ships, plus maintenance & replacement) operating for 100 years.  Whether the weather remains as is or gets colder, Salter gets the credit for averting disaster.  However, if it keeps getting hotter, do we get a refund and where will he be found 100-years hence that he’ll make good?   Only government is so foolish as to fund projects this absurd.  Given the absurdity, is there any doubt which candidate Salter would rather see in the Oval Office?

On the positive side, at least one wonk has recovered his senses in the debate over global-warming.  The Heartland Institute reports atmospheric scientist Emanuel Kerry concluding that “global warming can’t be blamed for an increase in the number of hurricanes over the last 27 years.”  Heartland calls Kerry “the godfather of the hurricane-global warming link.”  While hardly an endorsement for conservatism, it is encouraging that a liberal-scientist who, a year ago, ignored challenges to AGW is now making one (i.e., they can be taught!)

Reproductive-Health Reality Check is a pro-abortion advocacy group making unsupported attributions based on what is a side issue (cancer rates following aborted v. term pregnancies) to a critique by a pro-lifer regarding a flawed medical study.  (Check your own masthead meatheads.  If this is your idea of a "reality check," you flubbed it.)  The criticisms made of the pro-choice writer’s bias in no way addresses the flaws in the study, yet he seems to think bias in someone else’s critique suffices to do just that (i.e., two negatives make a positive).  It is clear the writer, Ian, did not read the whole article he belittles (or made up his mind too soon) else he’d have noticed it addresses his concerns rather neatly and with better references.  How does this relate to my premise that liberal-scientists participate in politicizing science?  It doesn’t directly, but is the kind of wobbly advocacy liberal-minded-scientists are abetting without much thought.

For a more direct example of liberal medical advocacy, I take you to WebMD where the editor, Don Fernandez, sees nothing amiss in bullying others to lose weight through the agency of government.  He proposes we get government to impose higher medical premiums for those who fail to skinny down.  This is an idea that’s been percolating among health-Nazis for several years.  Among the assumptions made is it is equitable because the only ones punished are those who neglect to get in shape after a “whole year!”  Sound familiar?  It should, because it is the same argument used to tax smokers.  So you’ve been fighting fat most of your adult life and all you lacked was proper motivation.  If the considerable cost of fighting obesity, poor health, lifestyle inconveniences, assorted indignities, and a handicap are not sufficient to motivate you to unload that extra mass, what is the likelihood another $25 will do the trick?  But, let’s not quibble with Fernandez in his determination to get government involved, because we know he means well.   Besides, we all know how much better things get once government gets involved.  Fernandez argues on a basis of growing support more than any legitimate interest of the community or expectation of success.  It is enough for him that others believe in it (consensus) and that it includes the progressive element of "hope."   Some measures have a public component to them making them legitimate (e.g., combating drug-addiction, speeding fines), which obesity-prevention clearly lacks.  It is a blatant abuse of government to impose an elitist objective without so much as a referendum.  Not that a referendum makes it more legitimate, but, at least, the bullying would be "democratic" (so much nicer knowing you’ve been gang-banged with principle intact).

Perhaps no other issue is more illustrative of the radicalism of the medical community than abortion.  In the fight against it, opponents have charged the procedure is not without psychological costs to women, often manifesting years later but also near-term.  They’ve even given it a name, "post-abortion syndrome," with many of the same symptoms as post-traumatic stress disorder (combat stress).  Abortion proponents insist abortion causes little or no distress and judge PAS a fraud.  The medical-science community overwhelmingly defends and supports abortion, including providing cover for its practitioners and Planned Parenthood.  The American Psychological Association (APA) recently weighed in; and, according to Physicians for Life, “arbitrarily decided that abortion doesn't hurt women.”  Rather than doing original research, APA took the approach of surveying existing research to come up with a "consensus" position.  But then, APA did something odd.  It methodically found flaws in most of the reports as an excuse to dismiss them, and then drew its own conclusions at variance with the greater body of research.  Finding flaws is no great trick with the virtual certainty being every study has them.  A single flawed report might be cause to draw your own conclusion (or, better yet, draw none), but it should take more than a few flaws to dismiss such a large body of reports without good cause; which, despite flaws, do point to a general conclusion that abortion causes some degree of psychological trauma.

* * *

In the hijacking of public policy to promote science and medicine, practitioners see issues through a lens of pragmatism that justifies, in their minds, a greater burden on taxpayers and constraining behavior.   In this, they are little different than other special interests or sufficiently homogeneous groups.  Where they differ is the degree of influence they collectively wield in our culture.  The vast majority of liberal-scientists formed political opinions while attending liberal universities and live in liberal enclaves where their assumptions are rarely challenged.  They are often the busiest, hardest-working, most dedicated and stressed of individuals, leaving them little time and energy to give to questions of politics or whether their trust in socialism is misplaced.  Socialism has certain advantages if you are a scientist, health-worker or public works engineer less obvious to the rest of us.  It provides an undemanding political framework, promises safety-net guarantees, reduces and spreads liability, eliminates difficult questions of choice, protects against competition, and alleviates the liberal-scientist from constantly finding and securing sources of funding.  It also makes it a lot easier for liberal-scientists to get pet agendas pushed to the fore (e.g., universal medical coverage, socialized-healthcare, global-warming, alternative-energy, nuclear bans, etc.).  It would be easy to attribute this usurpation-addiction to simple greed, but scientists and doctors are more often idealists who believe they serve us even as they limit our options, who see freedom only in the "progress" they create; and it is this idealism, without dint of fallibility, I find careless of the culture of freedom.

Despite a clear liberal bent, Michael Crichton sounds a warning against pseudo-science and the politicization of science in his article "Why Politicized Science is Dangerous."   In it, he states “. . . the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.”  The example he gives is eugenics, which a century ago was a scientific gospel on which human sacrifices were made.  Crichton means by this, that science should not become perverted through contact with politics.  Yet, it should be equally cautioned that science has the power to warp our politics and principles, even as it creates opportunity and lights our way.

That’s the news from Absurdistan.  I hope the news, where you are, is all good.