
We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks - areoform
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-must-defend-science-in-the-face-of-political-attacks/
======
apo
You have a group of people in Washington tasked with doling out money for
research. By its very nature this federal funding has politicized science for
a long time. Ask anyone who has been through a scientific PhD program whether
or not their field has been politicized because of grants received or not
received.

The trick this article plays is to argue in part that science needs to be
politicized _the right way._ Diversity initiatives. Massive spending programs
without clearly-defined revenue streams. Protecting scientists from "political
interference," a term which is impossible to define without eliminating the
ability to filter junk science. Everyone needs to sign off on this or the bad
things will happen.

I'm sure the author's intentions were good, but restoring public confidence in
science means that scientists themselves need to take a good look in the
mirror.

~~~
Gravityloss
Probably if you spend enough time and effort you can find something political
in, say, the mathematics papers written by any given university research team
on any given year. But if a politician advocates for teaching that Pi is
exactly three, in my opinion that's on a whole different level.

Your post advocates for false equivalence, in a somewhat indirect manner. We
get to "all science is politicized". And then the muddling of the waters is
complete.

~~~
bluGill
What value is in that mathematical papers though? Most of it is correct within
itself, but useless for anything real world and always will be.

There is only so much labor we have as society. We need to make choices as to
what we do. If everybody was willing we could dedicate society to just math.
People can sleep under their desk at work, eat the mass produced cafeteria
food, never watch sports, just work eat sleep. A lot of mathematicians could
be funded with the leftover money (remember they are living the same life so
their cost of living is tiny - more than half our population could produce
more theorems).

The above is obviously Reductio ad Absurdum. However it brings out the point:
we as a society have already decided math isn't the most valuable thing. We
are already drawing limits, the only question is where.

~~~
kaitai
Mathematics is surprisingly useful. You've used your credit card online --
where'd that encryption algorithm come from? "Useless" math. You've booked a
flight online -- where'd that schedule come from? Uh, math again: all that
optimization, those traveling salesman problems.

Right now I'm doing all sorts of work studying risk in financial networks,
studying public health, all using math that was considered "pure" just 20
years ago. Actually, at the moment I'm looking up papers on the tropical
geometry of deep learning.

Certainly I realize society has decided math is not the most valuable thing,
which is why I'll be seeking to do "machine learning" instead in the next year
or so, rather than education & research (useless for anything in the real
world!). I'm sure I'll add more to humanity when I'm optimizing for ad clicks
:)

~~~
bluGill
I didn't argue all math is useless. I argued a lot of it is

~~~
jonhendry18
Something may look useless now, but turn out not to be useless.

Something might be useless now, but further mathematics _based_ on it might be
worth billions.

------
throwaway713
One of the problems with the “defend science” movement is that it’s often
being (mis)-used to support philosophical positions that are fundamentally
unanswerable by science: concepts like afterlife, gender, and when life
begins. I’m not saying I disagree with the popular viewpoints, but science is
the wrong tool for the job. (Does human life have inherent value? I don’t
know, but better predictive models and more experimentation isn’t going to
answer that question.)

~~~
torstenvl
When life begins is clearly a scientific question. Perhaps you mean the
question of when society should recognize and protect _personhood_?

~~~
cuspycode
Agreed. According to science, life began about 4 billion years ago, and has
been going on without interruption ever since. Personhood is a completely
different (but nonetheless very interesting) category.

------
rubbingalcohol
This article is dog shit. "We must defend science against extremist political
attacks by being political extremists." Their solution is to scream the
loudest. People like this are incredibly tiring to deal with and offer nothing
practical.

------
drilldrive
If you cannot see that the March for Science is part of the problem of the
politicization of science, then you are lost all the same.

~~~
ilikehurdles
Calling the march a part of the problem is a cop-out excusing the real
problems - the political response to science that spurred the march, the
political response to the march itself, and mass-media's role in the
politicization of science. If we say that the march is the problem, then we're
saying that we should be taking at face-value anything the lobbyist talking
heads of Fox News and CNN say about whatever they're pointing their fingers
at.

Climate Science denialist PR campaigns by Koch Industries are politicization,
and it feels filthy wrong that we're overwhelmingly pointing fingers at the
scientists and grassroots actors responding to these campaigns instead of the
groups publishing and hosting the lies.

~~~
ameister14
I think we should be precise here.

Saying the march is part of the problem does not mean that the lobbyists are
not also part of the problem. It also does not mean the march is a _root
cause_ of the problem.

It just acknowledges that the march is a part of the politicization of
science, which it is.

~~~
komali2
What action, with the objective of reducing the politicization of science,
could be taken that could be construed as "non-political?"

~~~
mooseburger
One that does not serve the interests of any one political faction.

~~~
komali2
In that case it is impossible to do Climate Change, science, no? It serves the
interest of the Democratic "agenda," as a side effect.

~~~
mooseburger
There are many ways around global warming, of which current Democrat policy is
just one. Republicans are being silly by not proposing alternative approaches
to this problem, agreed, but they absolutely can.

~~~
komali2
More specifically, to the republican party, climate change does not exist.
Therefore, _any_ climate change research is politically anti-republican (why
would you research something that doesn't even exist?)

In the words of the leader of the republican party: "Climate Change is a
Chinese hoax."

This isn't the fault of scientists in any way, shape, or form. This is a
direct result of society, for some reason, organizing its political parties
along "pro-intellectualism" vs "anti-intellectualism" lines. How can
scientists fight back against this without being political? Should they just
"deal with it?"

------
Veen
> We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—race,
> ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geography, etc.

I note a diversity of politics isn’t included.

~~~
komali2
Well given that the article is about defending science _from_ politics, I'd
imagine it would extend to removing politics in all senses of the word _from_
science.

~~~
malvosenior
Except the post explicitly asks to inject politics into science by listing a
bunch of political talking points. How would you advocate for diversity in
class without politics for instance (choosing the least controversial of the
topics)?

The agenda here is very clearly left wing politics.

------
eitland
> 47 percent of scientists at the National Park Service and 35 percent at the
> Environmental Protection Agency report they had been asked to omit the
> phrase "climate change" from their work.

I guess a certain percentage of those who asked scientists to do that did it
for the same reason I dislike many (but certainly not all) blockchain
initiatives: it has been bolted on a something where it didn't belong just to
"profit" (or profit in the case of blockchains) from something that is hyped
by the media.

Climate change is serious, but it detracts from important work when people are
abusing those words to get funding for other unrelated research.

~~~
kaitai
I have to say, parks and the environment are, ah, pretty impacted by
climate... Why do you think that discussion of climate is "bolted on" to
parks/environment unnecessarily?

~~~
eitland
If you read carefully you might notice that I don't say everyone does, but I
fully expect scientists to be smart enough to add those magic words to
anything they want to study.

Source: I'm an engineer, I fully expect scientists to outperform me in this
;-)

~~~
jonhendry18
"I'm an engineer"

"I guess a certain percentage of those who asked scientists"

Is _guessing_ what engineers do now? I hope I never use anything you worked
on.

~~~
DuskStar
Fermi estimates are also known as "guessing with extra steps", but that
doesn't mean they aren't useful.

------
Mikeb85
So the solution to bias in the sciences is to double down on bias? Make sure
only the bias you support is present?

> Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, Ph.D. is a marine biologist and founder of Ocean
> Collectiv, a consulting firm for conservation solutions grounded in social
> justice.

Literally a think tank trying to advance scientific policies based on
politics.

~~~
tzs
There's a difference between choosing which areas of science to support based
on non-scientific criteria such as your politics (which is what it sounds like
she is doing), and trying to stop science from happening or supporting anti-
science because your politics are not consistent with science.

Take conservation. There might be several ways to approach a given
conservation problem, all of which are scientifically sound. It is then a
political question which to use. Her answer to that question would presumably
be one that advances social justice...but unless she would also falsely claim
that others are not scientifically valid, or would also try to stop research
into the other methods, her position and actions are not a political attack on
science.

------
instantwhat
This discussion is a good example of why downvoting, graying comment text, and
specifically, downvoting for disagreement, are bad.

The solution to the problem this story is about is robust, fearless discussion
in pursuit of truth.

But what I see here are many thoughtful, reasoned comments being shamed and
made hard-to-read by people who aren't able or willing to rebut them. It is
cowardly and anti-intellectual.

It's effectively the downvoters saying, "I disagree with what you said,
therefore I will make it harder for other people to hear you." It's
antithetical to the stated purpose of this site: intellectual curiosity.

~~~
GreaterFool
So one starts with 1 point. Someone clicks downvote, it goes to 0 and the
comment disappears, right? That's too fast IMHO.

Perhaps a better system would be to upvote only? Then constructive comments
would raise to the top and who really cares what's long way down?

~~~
instantwhat
> Perhaps a better system would be to upvote only? Then constructive comments
> would raise to the top and who really cares what's long way down?

I agree. That's one of the conclusions I've come to from having used different
comment voting systems online. I think tildes.net works that way.

But HN specifically has the problem that its founder thinks downvoting for
disagreement is good. It mystifies me that someone who ostensibly favors
intellectual curiosity has a stated policy which creates a narrow-minded echo
chamber (at least, for certain topics).

------
1PlayerOne
I have a feeling it is too late. The train has left the station on this one.

------
SolaceQuantum
Forgive me for my ignorance- I was under the impression that scientific
inquiry has _always_ been strongly affected by politics. See: The argument on
whether or not evolution is real. The discovery that the sun does not revolve
around the earth. The entire controversy behind the discovery of and research
into AIDS.

Is there something new I'm not understanding?

~~~
antepodius
When someone else does it, it's Politics. When We do it, it's Science.

------
jordanpg
Science, and especially certain scientific conclusions have very obviously
become politicized. Yes, that's unfortunate but it is the state of affairs.

Perhaps the problem is that scientists themselves are increasingly having to
fight their own political battles because their elected politicians can not or
will not.

------
fromthestart
>Diversity in science is not just for optics. We need scientists from diverse
backgrounds in all senses of the word—race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability,
geography, etc

If you don't want science to be attacked politically, don't politicize
science.

We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the
skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective,
competent workers, with a diversity of _scientific_ , not cultural views.

~~~
chris_mc
>diversity of scientific, not cultural views

Your cultural views can affect your scientific work. The imagination of
children in America vs. China is different, people have different dreams and
experiences, etc. I am constantly baffled by people like yourself who don't
understand that cultural diversity IS diversity of ideas. Whether that culture
comes from your location, race, upbringing, wealth, religion, or something
else, any sort of diversity is good in business or other organization as it
helps you think of new ways to innovate within your area of expertise.

------
povertyworld
This seems like another case of the left being shortsighted like when the left
cheers as bigtech purges conservatives never imagining that left voices can
and will be next if they ever became a threat. In this case, they seem only
focused on climate change, but they should consider that there may be other
scientific facts that go counter to left narratives. I seem to remember James
Damore's scandalous post riddled with citations of scientific studies. I'm
sure he would agree science must be defended...

~~~
eanzenberg
Defend science, unless you disagree with its outcome!

------
natch
If you want to defend science, a good place to start would be to refrain from
defending faith.

------
areoform
When these issues are raised, people tend to have two counter-productive
reactions. The first is abject defeatism. The second anger at the messenger
and accusations that they're a part of the problem. Or, in other words,
talking about politicizing science is politicizing science. Both have
justifiable viewpoints at their core but are harmful in the long-term
nonetheless.

The first is harmful and wrong for a straightforward reason; the range of
outcomes that emerge from defeatism are universally bad. The range of outcomes
that arise from a worldview that everything can be fixed stem from the bad to
the okay to the somewhat good. The range of results that are possible through
action outweigh those of inaction. So what's the point in giving up?

The second bit is the science is being used in such and such ways bit. This
reminds me of the debates I've had with people who have a hardline view of
individual freedoms and clauses in the constitution. I often like to tell them
that the constitution is a guiding document, not a suicide pact.

Ideally, we should live by the idealized impartiality and objectivity that
Scientists should have while interacting with the world. The idea that
Scientists should be in the ivory tower, away from the grime of humanity and
refraining from commenting on matters that connect and are of import with the
body politic. People will mention gender, sexuality, climate change, abortion
etc as these pivotal points where science can't give the answers and therefore
science must ixnay and look away.

But I would like to raise the idea of science Carl Sagan had. Science as a
candle in the dark. Sagan would talk at length about the development of
science in ancient societies, and how unconnected these developments were from
the lives of the population. Heron of Alexandria created a steam engine in the
ancient world, but he never applied to alleviate the burdens of humans. It was
used as a curiosity for the powerful. To quote his immortal words, "The
permanence of the stars was questioned; the justice of slavery was not."

Why shouldn't we use our insight into the human condition and the broader
perspective science offers us to inform our moral choices? Why should
scientists bind themselves into an idealized suicide pact when they're under
assault? Why can't scientists bring down the fire from Olympus and share it
with the populace?

Our problem stems from the fires of ignorance and the idea that someone's
ignorance is equal to someone else's research or knowledge. Why can't
scientists use the scientific method to investigate it and share their
perspective with the world?

Science tends to give people something akin to the overseer effect; why
shouldn't that be shared with the world, if it moves us just a bit in the
right direction?

Is the potential for misuse great? Yes, but what's the alternative?
Stagnation? An absence of the humanizing presence of science in the great
moral debates? Why should that be the realm of charlatans and the working of
mitochondria that of science? Why can't scientists connect the two and work to
illuminate the darkness?

~~~
xamuel
Because that's not what science is. Science is the study of physical objects
via empirical experiments. If you're talking about morality or ethics, those
aren't physical objects and you can't make empirical experiments about them.

~~~
cwkoss
Kind of funny that many of the impassioned pleas to respect science are often
pleading for support of things that are not scientific.

------
georgeburdell
The benefits of diversity is the Left’s pseudoscience, so I can’t take an
article seriously that so prominently features it. There is an unbelievable
amount of grift involved in getting a government scientific grant these days -
major awards must have a D&I component and I know from personal experience
it’s largely wasted.

The author only wants conservatives purged. I want climate deniers and
diversity sycophants alike purged from the scientific apparatus.

------
throw2016
Science is the search for truth, not the truth. At one time 'science' was
justifying eugenics, slavery, apartheid, racism and entire policies were
rolled out on the basis of discredited pseudo science of brain size.

You can imagine racists and sexists at that time appealing to 'science' to
maintain their privilege and worldview. You can see this now too, evidence
free sweeping assertions based on some scientific study but not supported by
that study and thus science, but presented as 'science'.

Large segments of the population have suffered grievously based on this kind
of 'science'. Hitler used eugenics and science. Science is not some absolute
truth, its a long drawn process to collect evidence, test assertions and
arrive at some truth, and its always been used and co-opted by those in power
to advance their objectives.

------
specialist
SciAm made the same battlecry (plea) back in the 90s. I supported it then as I
support it now. But it didn't work then and won't work now.

Because we don't understand the enemy.

The remedy isn't messaging, framing, engagement, empathy, discussion, or
whatever else rational people hope will induce irrationals to step into the
light.

Trying to sneak science thru the infotainment propaganda blockade ain't gonna
work. And is a waste of effort.

Perhaps the alternative is our own media empire.

Fox News was run at a loss its first decade. Something like $500m/yr is spent,
at a loss, on the right wing noise machine. All those popular alt-right sites
have patrons.

Does the left have anything comparable? In scale and gumption?

I don't know if it'd work. Reason ain't sexy. Versus the outrage and fear
factory. But I'd like to try something new.

\--

Also, impartiality and objectivity is a trap. Just tell your story sincerely,
unapologetically. The opponents will blather regardless, so don't share your
soapbox.

~~~
weberc2
Do you seriously believe there is a dearth of left-wing mainstream media
outlets? And the problem with the politicization of science is not a right-vs-
left issue. The left has its own bag of anti-science positions (e.g., blank
slatism, anti-GMO, implicit bias, etc).

EDIT: Do downvoters question that the majority of prominent news outlets are
left-wing or that the left has anti-science positions?

~~~
specialist
Sputnik

My mentor's theory is that the assault on reason, America's proud tradition of
anti-intellectualism, took a brief hiatus after WWII because the Cold War and
the space race required rocket scientists and engineers. So a brief truce of
sorts was maintained between the humanists and the know-nothings.

Sad to think we'll need an external existential threat like an alien invasion
or imminent asteroid strike to pause the food fight.

------
75dvtwin
If hacker news is to preserve its community of diverse, exceptionally
technical, and well-articulating members -- the site moderators must stop
publishing left-wing propaganda.

I appreciate that they are left-leaning, however they use aggressively use
'plausible deniability' to infest (and allow others to) this site with NYT,
VOX, scientific-american, NPR and other US-centric left propaganda machines.

'Plausible deniability' used by HN moderators involves, letting through
articles and opinions that are just touching 'technology' (that's where
plausible comes in), while mostly reflecting the left agenda and talking
points.

Then, when conservative positions are being argued in comments, they will be
massively downvoted and flagged -- as (not technology relevant or offensive).

Same approach the HN moderators are applying to new posts.

My ask is for everybody who thinks this is a problem, to either not
participate in these discussions, or simply move over to lobste.rs, where
there is still a sense of sane.

~~~
dang
For me it will forever be weird to run across internet comments talking about
my inner thought processes. I don't recognize myself in what you say. Are you
sure you're right?

~~~
instantwhat
Perhaps look at it from the perspective of a software developer, Dan. A user
files a bug report about bad output. The developer is mystified, because he
definitely didn't intend for the code he wrote to work that way, and other
users are happy with the program's output.

Now the developer has a choice: dismiss the bug report, thinking the user must
be crazy, or accept that there is a problem with the software's output and fix
it.

~~~
dang
Would it were so easy! It's more like this. You get dozens of bug reports a
day. Some report that XYZ are bugs while others report that no, those are
features and you'd better add more, but ABC are bugs and you'd better fix
those. If you change ABC or XYZ, there is scandal and outrage! Many new
reports are filed.

The bug reports come with cartoons showing you secretly engineering the bugs
owing to your thoughts and feelings against the bug reporters. Opposing
reports have similar cartoons, with heroes and villains rotated, but there you
are too, secretly engineering bugs. The cartoons don't match anything you
remember thinking or feeling, but the bug reporters know better, publish
daily, and accost passers-by with tales of how callously you oppress them for
their bug-reporting service. The bug reporters tell similar stories about each
other, too, and file bug reports about each other when they're not filing them
about you. What should we do now? :)

~~~
instantwhat
> What should we do now? :)

I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did. My point is simply that there
is definitely a bias on HN, and I think few people would seriously claim that
it's right-leaning.

A multi-axis perspective would probably be more useful: one could say that the
pro-business/pro-startup bias is right-leaning, but one could also say that
it's libertarian, and libertarianism isn't necessarily on the right when
compared to "conservatism" or other supposedly "right-leaning" political
views.

Regardless, from looking at the articles that make the front page, and from
reading comments on stories that have a political slant (e.g. anything
environment-related), what I see flagged and downvoted into obscurity--
excluding obvious guidelines violations--are _not_ left-leaning comments, but
right-leaning ones, including many thoughtful, reasonable ones.

At the same time, trite, left-leaning, talking point-style comments remain at
#000.

This is plain to any observer who's been here a while.

So I don't know the answer. However, maybe a first step would be
acknowledgement. I would love to see you and/or other mods openly admit the
left-leaning bias on HN. Not an admission of guilt on your part for supposedly
moderating unfairly, but an admission that the _output_ of the HN "program,"
as it were--which includes the community, not just the actual code and staff--
is left-leaning.

If nothing else, perhaps it would help certain outstanding members of the
community recognize the problem and be more open-minded. I don't think anyone
benefits when good comments are shamed into obscurity and their writers are
driven away. That doesn't help the problem of polarization that our society is
facing.

~~~
dang
I'd like to see links to thoughtful, reasonable comments that have been
flagged or downvoted into obscurity. As many such links as you (or anyone) can
possibly come up with, I'd like to look at them. Best to email
hn@ycombinator.com because this thread is sinking low in the feed now.

Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel
like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor? Because, in my
experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels.
This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political
orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a
single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true.

I'm not saying it follows that things _aren 't_ biased—that would be a non
sequitur. But I am saying that people's perceptions on this are unreliable
across the political spectrum, and for the same reason: it's humans looking at
it, and we all have the same wiring. Whatever that wiring is, it cuts much
deeper than left vs. right divisions, because the behaviors are identical
across that divide.

~~~
instantwhat
I appreciate your response. I don't expect you'll see this reply, since it's
so old, but just in case:

> Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel
> like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor?

Generally, yes, of course.

> Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased
> actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict
> someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't
> believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure
> it's true.

I'm guessing this isn't what you mean by that, but I'd like to point out a way
to interpret it: If HN is left-leaning, and left-leaning people do not think
HN is biased, then only right-leaning people would think HN is biased, and one
could predict political orientation based on whether a person thinks HN is
biased.

In other words, if left-leaning people think their position is neutral (e.g.
because they're irreligious, and they think that religion is biased and that
secularism is unbiased), and HN is left-leaning, then left-leaning people
would think HN is unbiased, and right-leaning people would think it is biased.

Now I'm guessing you meant that both left- and right-leaning people think HN
is biased against their political orientation.

But I challenge you (not that you haven't done this, but still) to look at
submissions on polarizing issues (e.g. global warming, sexism, racism), look
at the comments that are downvoted and flagged, and look at which viewpoints
those comments espouse. Modulo comments that are flagged or downvoted for
obvious guidelines violations, my claim is that the vast majority are ones
that are right-leaning. I don't think confirmation bias is causing me to think
this--I think it's a fair observation.

And if that observation is correct, then I think it's fair to conclude that HN
is biased to the left.

