Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Science vs Policy

  1. Jul 21, 2010 #1

    SixNein

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The United States government has been trying to define the role of science in policy making for years. But in recent decades, there has been a large push to separate science and policy making. Instead of creating policy based upon the best scientific evidence, the government is moving toward creating policy then find any supporting scientific evidence, and any inconvenient scientific evidence is either ignored or smeared as pseudoscience.

    So I have a few questions:

    Do you beleive the American government is taking a more anti-science position?

    Do you agree or disagree with the government's position? Why?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 21, 2010 #2

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The government has positions on dozens of science-related issues. Which one are you asking about?
     
  4. Jul 21, 2010 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Please post valid sources for this.

    Thanks!
     
  5. Jul 22, 2010 #4
    Yes, this is how it's done. If science supports a policy decision, then the science is cited. If it doesn't, then the science is ignored or discrecredited. The public at large couldn't care less.

    Not necessarily. Policy has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with maintaining a stable environment (the status quo) for those who have a lot to lose.

    Well, I'm not rich, so of course I disagree with the government's position. But, if I were rich, then I would agree with the government's position.
     
  6. Jul 22, 2010 #5

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is a very simplistic and cynical approach to take. I don't think you would find many people who would agree with the government's position on anything/everything if and only if they are rich
     
  7. Jul 22, 2010 #6

    SixNein

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think this is common knowledge. Global warming? Evolution? Collapsing biodiversity? The list goes on and on.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/full/439896a.html
    http://www.aaas.org/programs/centers/pe/media/20080506_times_picayune.pdf[/URL]
    [URL]http://defendingscience.org/newsroom/Scientists-in-Government-Report.cfm[/URL]

    There has been some progress with obama at least in words, but we will just have to wait and see if these words develop into actions.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  8. Jul 22, 2010 #7

    SixNein

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

     
  9. Jul 22, 2010 #8

    SixNein

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not talking about any specific issue; instead, I'm talking about the overall mood of the government. Sure, scientists may have a few allies in government, but the group of allies seems to be thin when it comes time for policy making to occur.

    Here is an example, mercury levels:

    "Instead, senior Bush officials suppressed and sought to manipulate government information about mercury contained in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on children's health and the environment. As the EPA readied the report for completion in May 2002, the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) began a lengthy review of the document. In February 2003, after nine months of delay by the White House, a frustrated EPA official leaked the draft report to the Wall Street Journal, including its finding that eight percent of women between the ages of 16 and 49 have mercury levels in the blood that could lead to reduced IQ and motor skills in their offspring."

    http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/mercury-emissions.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2010
  10. Jul 23, 2010 #9
    I'd like it if policy was based on science.

    Then I suppose I'd have to spend some of my riches to get them to support me instead.
     
  11. Jul 23, 2010 #10
    Yes, it is.

    I agree. Being rich isn't a prerequisite for agreeing with the government's position.
     
  12. Jul 23, 2010 #11

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    NOT(rich) => NOT(agreement)

    Therefore, agreement => rich (i.e., if you are in agreement, you have to be rich)

    Contradiction. You've just stated above that it is a pre-requisite.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Science vs Policy
  1. Religion vs science (Replies: 1)

  2. Music vs science (Replies: 18)

Loading...