Never Trust a Senator With a Test Tube

Hmmm. “The Republican War on Science”? Could this possibly be a partisan polemic? One possible clue (aside from the fact that the book’s ad campaign is sponsored by the Nation and Mother Jones) might be the cover jacket. There, at the top, we see the back end of an elephant. At the bottom of the cover is a smashed lab vessel oozing a life-saving potion that the long-suffering people of the world will now unfortunately never have, thanks to the “elephant” and its ilk.Not surprisingly, it turns out that this is a biased, one-sided argument accusing the Republicans of twisting and distorting science in the furtherance of their evil schemes. But, as Henry Kissinger said, even paranoids have enemies, and “The Republican War on Science”(Basic Books, 342 pages, $24.95) does score some major hits when it takes on ideological campaigns against embryonic stem cell research and for intelligent design. Unfortunately, Chris Mooney’s overt advocacy sabotages any effort to learn the truth.The author’s basic argument is this: In spite of the fact that good science is crucial to the proper formation of public policy, the Republicans have routinely distorted scientific findings, undermined the independence of federal science agencies, and ignored overwhelming scientific opinion on stem cell research, climate change, missile defense, product safety, and environmental regulation.These are tough accusations, some of which may have merit. The reader, however, is so overwhelmed by the mind numbing recitation of congressional hearings, testimonies, statements, counterstatements, and such thoroughly confusing analyses of policy that objective judgment is impossible.Can Mr. Mooney really believe that the matter is as one-sided as this? The most he will concede is that “on the question of left wing science politicization, it certainly exists. … In fact, in politicized fights involving science, it is rare to find liberals entirely innocent of abuses. But they are almost never as guilty as the Right.” That sounds fair enough, but this more nuanced (and interesting) approach is not pursued.As Mr. Mooney concentrates on scoring political points, we have an opportunity to observe how his (and the left’s) underlying assumptions influence his conclusions. The partisan methodology used in the book suffers from two essential flaws. In the first place, Mr. Mooney is obliged to use the same type of “cherry-picking” among scientific opinions that he accuses the Right of doing.Ongoing scientific investigations always generate different and competing opinions. But when science and politics meet, “cherry-picking” is inevitable.For example, in his analysis of global warming, Mr. Mooney slams the Bush administration for ignoring the “consensus” of mainstream scientists who insist that global temperatures have suddenly gone up as a result of human activity. One of the key studies cited to support this assumption was generated by the University of Virginia’s Michael Mann and includes the famous “hockey stick” (or J-Curve) diagram showing global temperatures going straight up at the end of the 20th century.Mr. Mooney mentions, and summarily dismisses, some contrary views, but makes no mention of other detailed rebuttals of Mr. Mann’s work, which include a particularly strong attack made by several Canadian scientists in an article for MIT’s Technology Review in October 2004. As recently as August of this year, James Schlesinger, our first secretary of energy, published a vigorous rejection of the assumption that “the science is settled” on this matter.The deeper, and more interesting, flaw in this kind of partisan attack methodology is that it shows the inherent limitations of the Left’s imagination itself. Because liberals tend to inhabit a universe filled with like-minded versions of themselves, they eventually mistake their solipsism for the “mainstream.” Their partisan worldview becomes universalized, as revealed, for example, in their incessant demands for “mainstream” court candidates.Mr. Mooney has so identified with this group that he is unable to think about these issues in broader terms. In his entire discussion of global warming, for example, the only important question for him is whether humans have caused the warming. If the answer is yes, then the Kyoto Protocol must be invoked because man has obviously violated the Virgin Planet and so must pay penance. It has apparently never occurred to either Mr. Mooney or his Friends of the Earth colleagues that this is completely beside the point.It makes no difference at all whether global warming has been caused by man’s evil deeds, volcanoes, Earth tilt, God, or whatever. The only question is, “What are we going to do about it?” The truth is that absolutely no one has the slightest idea what would actually happen if vast “corrective” measures (Kyoto) were undertaken. The world economy would be destroyed, but whether the climate itself would improve or suddenly go completely into the tank is anybody’s guess.Further doctrinal myopia is evident throughout the polemic. In the section devoted to his discussion of Republican assaults on the environment (a key part of liberal theology), Mr. Mooney simply assumes the legitimacy of the Endangered Species Act – which, in his words, “embodied an activist desire to prevent the loss of any more species.” Any more? Does this make any Darwinian sense?Of course not, but when the Klamath, Ore., farmers were shut down completely to protect some kind of bottom-sucker, Mr. Mooney’s sympathy certainly wasn’t with the farmers, whom he dismisses as “a distinct patch of red within the reliable blue state of Oregon.” In his worldview, Industry is a widely recognized source of pure evil. Not a word of recognition for Monsanto and its genetically altered crops, which have saved literally millions from sure starvation, despite the protests of Left liberals worldwide.Science will continue to be the linchpin of national policy for the foreseeable future. Consequently, both sides have a responsibility to try not to demonize science when it comes into conflict with their cherished beliefs. There are much tougher scientific crises heading our way, and both parties would be well advised to keep their skeptical powder dry, and their scriptures in their pockets. Better yet, they should simply stay out of the lab.Mr. Pettus last wrote for these pages on America before the arrival of Christopher Columbus.

Never Trust a Senator With a Test Tube

Never Trust a Senator With a Test Tube

More from the New York Sun

What’s Weird and Wonderful?

Moral Panic Over AI Surges Ahead of Decisive Midterm Elections

‘Fauda’ Is Back — and October 7 Changed Everything

AI Threats Are Expected To Figure in Prep Talks for Trump-Xi Summit

White House Turns Away Journalists From CNN, MS NOW and Politico After Trump Ban

With Trump’s Greenland Deal, Arctic Arms Race Looks Set To Heat Up

Pentagon Releases New UFO Files as Whistleblowers Urge Trump To Lift Disclosure Restrictions

The Bittersweet Sound of the Dominican Republic

More from the New York Sun

What’s Weird and Wonderful?

Moral Panic Over AI Surges Ahead of Decisive Midterm Elections

‘Fauda’ Is Back — and October 7 Changed Everything

AI Threats Are Expected To Figure in Prep Talks for Trump-Xi Summit

White House Turns Away Journalists From CNN, MS NOW and Politico After Trump Ban

With Trump’s Greenland Deal, Arctic Arms Race Looks Set To Heat Up

Pentagon Releases New UFO Files as Whistleblowers Urge Trump To Lift Disclosure Restrictions

The Bittersweet Sound of the Dominican Republic