RSS
Home
Bush's failure as Scientist in Chief
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
In this past week further evidence has emerged of the extent to which the Bush administration has attempted to mislead the American public on the matter of critical science policy decisions.
In 2006, around the time of the release of Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," the Philadelphia Inquirer published the following cartoon:
At the time it was taken as an insightful and funny - if slightly over-the-top - poke at the dubious fact-finding processes employed by the Bush Administration.
Midway through 2008, there is nothing funny nor over-the-top about it. Indeed, it could serve as the single most telling indictment of Bush's term in office. It seems as though not a week goes by where we don't find out about a new "subject" in which the Bush administration invoked yet another convenient untruth.
In the latest instance, the office of the Inspector General for NASA recently released its report (available here) of an investigation which found that "during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public."
In essence, the report found that Bush political appointees at NASA Headquarters willfully undermined and censored NASA scientist's research on climate change and human influence on global warming, in order to hide the obvious conflict between the scientific results and favored Bush policies.
Upon the release of the report, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, who wrote the request for the inquiry, stated: “Our government’s response to global warming must be based on science, and the Bush administration’s manipulation of that information violates the public trust.”
This report joins a growing body of evidence for Bush-Cheney misrepresentation of data from fact-finding missions undertaken by the federal agencies under their control. The list includes misrepresentation of intelligence gathered before the invasion of Iraq, politically based interference within the EPA and the Interior Departments, politically motivated interference in the debate over the teaching of evolution versus intelligent-design, politically based suppression of stem-cell research, and so forth and so on, and on and on and on.
I am not going to comment on all of the instances in which the Bush administration has been untruthful or misleading. However, science is my bailiwick and I, as a scientist and journalist, cannot stand idly by as the hard-won trust in the legitimacy of our critical scientific institutions is so perversely abused for short-term political gain. It is my duty to make as clear as I can the nature of the threat posed by the Bush Administration's abuse of the principles of scientific method.
I can do no better in this task than to lay before you the case for integrity in scientific investigation as it was made by the physicist Richard Feynman in a 1974 Commencement Address at Caltech.
In his speech (available here), Feynman describes eloquently and succinctly the kind of honesty and integrity that is required in the pursuit of scientific legitimacy.
This treatise is essential reading for anybody who would call themselves a scientist. To my knowledge, it is never explicitly assigned in any college science class. Rather, every scientist seems to stumble upon it at some point in their careers, and instantly becomes a better scientist - even a better person - for having read it. Its truth and importance are immediately self-evident: there is simply no conceivable counter-argument.
Here are a few critical excerpts from the whole address, which I strongly recommend that you read even if you are not a scientist, as the principles it advocates are relevant in every walk of life.
There is, Feynman, proposes ....
"... an idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly.
It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards.
For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
So I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.
It should go without saying that the kind of integrity demanded here should be the standard to which our political leadership holds itself and the agencies under its control. Sadly, given the incredible lack of integrity exhibited by the Bush administration, it must be said and said, and said again, until no responsible citizen will stand for anything less.
The worst crime in these cases lies in the willful misrepresentation by our leaders of the results obtained by scientists who held themselves to a high standard of integrity and honesty in the performance of their work. The dishonesty at the top taints everybody involved. There is nothing so demoralizing for a scientist as to have lived up to those principles of integrity in your own work and then to have others - especially your very bosses and leaders! - violate those principles of integrity by misrepresenting, distorting, or even denying your results.
No scientist who so deliberately misrepresented the case for his theories would survive in academia. No politician who so deliberately misrepresents the case for his policies should be allowed to remain in office. There is no more room for "convenient untruth" within our political process than within our scientific process.
Just as Bush is the "Commander in Chief" with regard to the military agencies under his command, he also assumes the role of "Scientist in Chief" with respect to the scientific and other fact-finding agencies under his command. Just as he must uphold the rules of military conduct in his role as Commander in Chief, he must also uphold the rules of scientific conduct in his role as Scientist in Chief. This he has completely and utterly failed to do.
It is too late for Bush, we can't change the past. But we can, and we must, change the future by ensuring that our future political leaders clearly understand and accept their responsibility as Scientist in Chief by applying the highest standards of honesty and integrity in the application of scientific methods to their policy decisions.
Appropriately, Feynman's closing benediction is as relevant to developing politicians as it is to developing scientists:
"So I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom."
