The state of science, or science and the state

Once upon a time, we children were told that because science was so important, we had to take a lot of it - earth science, biology, chemistry and for some, physics. The scientific method was used to determine fact from fiction. At the time, the fear of polio was still in our memories. Pictures of iron lungs and wheelchair-bound children with wasted limbs were still often seen. Finally though, science found a way to largely prevent it. We believed that science was indeed very close to awesome.

The scientific method, paraphrased so that even rednecks like me can understand it, basically involves three steps; observe an action or perform an experiment, put forth a theory explaining it, then attempt to disprove it, this last usually involving other scientists. Theories which don't return the same results each time are discarded and only those which cannot be disproven are to become known as scientific facts.

As an example, when I was very young scientists said the earth was flat, but by elementary school they'd changed their minds. This is not a rebuke of science, because science is not static. But, sadly, changes in accepted scientific facts are often because of political pressures, and they always have been. And the more that the government is a primary source of employment for scientists, the more important politics becomes.

Most of us recall how President Bush was castigated for his stand on financing stem cell research using embryos. His reluctance to finance such from federal funds was used to label him as anti-science. Obama, in his campaign, mentioned often that his administration would be led by science as opposed to politics, an obvious elbow to the prior administration.

As with so much of his campaign rhetoric, Obama's actions rarely agree with his endless speeches. Finally, after two long years, even the media are finally starting to take notice. While most will simply consider this politics as usual, it might provide another talking point for 2012.

Another thing we were taught all those years back was that eggs and meat and milk and sunshine were all very important for good health. Since then all four of those items have been deemed dangerous, though there is now serious pushback on at least three of the four. Does this signal that politics may have been involved at some point along the way? If you think not, just eat some more tofu.

So what proof do I have for such an assertation? Other than watching from afar and wondering, not a great deal, but every once in a while I find an article which proclaims that much of today's medical research is invalid. Believing that politics are not involved in science is much like me believing that every good looking woman in the world is googling my name, hoping to hook up.

In fairness to those scientists whose continued employment depends on grants from the government, it would not be easy to argue against findings, if those findings might endanger their jobs. Luckily for them, the actual scientists themselves rarely do the speaking, as the political leaders of whatever agency they work for do the lying. After all, that's what politicians do best.

But no one can honestly deny that scientists have improved our lives in many ways. One of the more interesting, though I use that word cautiously, is how they've learned to treat waste water so that we can drink recycled pee.

---