Two weeks ago, I published a post Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions? referencing an article written by environmentalist Fred Pearce. I read this book review in Forbes over the weekend.
A polemical new book, Science Left Behind, argues persuasively that there is less than meets the eye in self-righteous claims by Democrats that they represent the “pro-science party.” Jon Entine, Director of the Genetic Literacy Project, reports:
The debate over which political party, Democrat or Republican, is more faithful to science has been a hot button topic since the 1990s. ...
... A slew of books and articles from left-leaning science writers—which means most of the science journalism establishment—has elevated the popular narrative that Democrats adhere faithfully to the inspiration of Newton, Galileo, Bacon and Darwin while Republicans look more to ethereal authorities for their application of the scientific method.
But now, Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell, co-authors of Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left, make a nuanced and convincing counter argument: Ludditism is not a partisan issue. In fact, on many of the most critical issues of our time, the “progressive” perspective is often rooted in out-dated, anti-empirical, junk science paradigms that threaten innovation—and are beginning to unnerve the most scientifically minded thinkers on the left. ...
... The central thesis of Science Left Behind—that the left’s view of science has drifted decisively from empiricism into ideology—has now emerged as a genuine debate within the left community. This contentiousness became very public over the past month as “progressives” debated the merits of California Proposition 37, which would have mandated labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms.
For the political left, suspicion of biotechnology in general and more specifically the rejection of genetically modified crops as environmentally hazardous and GM foods as health hazards are now canonical. Almost every major activist environmental NGO supported Prop 37. But their contention that biotech crops and foods posted unusual environmental or health hazards is not based on science. In fact, fanning fears about biotech crops and foods has become a scandalous leftwing obsession. It’s an anti-science mindset, argues Keith Kloor, a frequent contributor to the Washington Post-owned, liberal online magazine Slate:
“[F]ears are stoked by prominent environmental groups, supposed food-safety watchdogs, and influential food columnists; that dodgy science is laundered by well-respected scholars and propaganda is treated credulously by legendary journalists; and that progressive media outlets, which often decry the scurrilous rhetoric that warps the climate debate, serve up a comparable agitprop when it comes to GMOs,” Kloors wrote. “In short, I’ve learned that the emotionally charged, politicized discourse on GMOs is mired in the kind of fever swamps that have polluted climate science beyond recognition.”
This soft conspiracy, promoted by mainstream Democrats, infects a broad array of science issues and highlights the religious-like iconic beliefs of the left (as Kloor has noted): Nature is sacred, big business is dangerous and corrupt, technology can cause more problems than it helps solve, the world is on the verge of an eco-apocalypse, and we need more precaution, regulation and legislation. I call it enviro-romanticism, a criticism documented in distressing detail in Science Left Behind. ...
... As George Monbiot, one of the United Kingdom’s most prominent environmental writers recently concluded when discussing the left’s contradictory and increasingly anti-environmental energy policy, “[T]he environmental movement to which I belong has done more harm to the planet’s living systems than climate change deniers have ever achieved.” We could all benefit from the emergence of what I call “science independents”—those who base their views on data and evidence rather than partisan leanings and litmus tests. ...
I think the challenge is that we all tend to latch on to science that confirms our experience and ideology. We are dismissive when it doesn't. We need better models for incorporating science into discussions in the public square.
I think the issue is two-fold, the Democratic party has been home to a substantial number of people with post-bachelor degrees allowing them to take the lead on the issue in the general public... even if they really haven't been very vocal in general. The other issue is that research has increasingly become more and more expensive. It's easy to fear GMOs when the only folks that has the interest and the funds to run research on GMOs are the GMO growers and sellers themselves. Health-related research, to my understanding, is an expensive and on-going affair. Remember how long it took to prove cigarettes were carcinogens? And now, states like Pennsylvania, has put a gag on physicians, legally forbidding them from speaking up if they suspect that chemicals often used for fracking operations may have caused health issues (hard to blame the Democrats on this one, the state government is GOP top to bottom).
Ultimately, at the end of the day, it really is all politics. Science, religion, statistics, common sense are more often twisted to fit one's own agenda or thrown out entirely if inconvenient. That's part of why there is so much money flowing into the campaign coffers of state and federal legislators across the country, no one wants inconvenient truths to get out and only those capable of paying the piper to lead astray those annoying little media rats away from taking a closer look into their respective operations.
Posted by: Dan | Nov 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM
"Ultimately, at the end of the day, it really is all politics."
There was book published years ago titled, "Everything Is Politics But Politics Isn't Everything." While politics is often a potent factor I'm not willing to say everything can be collapsed into politics. ;-)
Posted by: Michael W. Kruse | Nov 13, 2012 at 01:14 PM