Scientists and politics

[Old Rocks]

Professor Smith Goes to Washington
In response to the new president’s stances on a range of issues, more scientists are preparing to run for political office.

For American science, the next four years look to be challenging. The newly inaugurated President Trump, and many of his Cabinet picks, have repeatedly cast doubt upon the reality of human-made climate change, questioned the repeatedly proven safety of vaccines. Since the inauguration, the administration has already frozen grants and contracts by the Environmental Protection Agency and gagged researchers at the US Department of Agriculture. Many scientists are asking themselves: What can I do?

And the answer from a newly formed group called 314 Action is: Get elected.

The organization, named after the first three digits of pi, is a political action committee that was created to support scientists in running for office. It’s the science version of Emily’s List, which focuses on pro-choice female candidates, or VoteVets, which backs war veterans. “A lot of scientists traditionally feel that science is above politics but we’re seeing that politics is not above getting involved in science,” says founder Shaughnessy Naughton. “We’re losing, and the only way to stop that is to get more people with scientific backgrounds at the table.”

Thanks to Trump, Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

When we have people in high office, President on down, that have the science knowledge of a third grader, it is time to work to put people that have some smarts in office.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists Are Running For Office Because They 'Want Reality to Be Fact-Based'

“We have a serious lack of people at all levels of government with a scientific background,” Naughton, who founded 314 Action last summer to help scientists launch political campaigns, told the audience. “Thankfully, running for office is a lot easier than getting your PhD,” she added, drawing laughter from the room.


Three months into Trump’s presidency, under an administration with little regard for scientists and even less for their conclusions, the American scientific community is in the midst of a political re-awakening. Thousands of scientists are standing up for evidence-based reasoning, by organizing protests, signing open letters to the White House, engaging in guerrilla data archiving events, and preparing to march on Washington this weekend, or to join one of the March for Science’s roughly 500 satellite events around the world.

http://gizmodo.com/scientists-are-running-for-office-to-bring-facts-back-t-1794500317

Policy based on evidence and reality rather than blind ideology.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is really scarily how fucking stupid our society has gotten over the past decade...Time to put science and advanced ideas ahead of bullshit once again.

 

[Dale Smith]

Before I smack the ever loving shit out of both of you and blow your lame arguments out of the water? I have one simple question to ask you....are you a shill or simply ignorant? Because those are the only two classifications that you fall under.

Please respond accordingly..........

 

[Ringel05]

I think we should only elect the clinically retarded, that way there'd be no doubt when we collectively call them idiots..........

 

[Meane]

Take away the power from the president and create more political parties so that the nation and all sides can actually be heard and have the chance to change things.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The simplest thing for scientists to do is give in, tell Trump he's right and they have been faking the evidence on gravity all this time, and he is free to step off the balcony at Trump Tower to confirm it. You know, like throwing a snowball in Congress to prove there is no Global Warming. Or they could just admit that aerodynamics is just an old archaic opinion and jets can fly without engines and it would sure save on fuel in AF1 if they turned the engines off mid-flight.

It's time to give in to conservative 'reality'.

 

[Spare_change]

Of course, most of the "claims" in the OP are categorically false ... or simply assumptions made my anti-Trump hysterics. But, hey ... who cares? It makes them feel good.

 

[usmbguest5318]

PBS Newshour, last week, did a segment (about 10 minutes) on this topic.

• Scientists consider running for office
  
• Scientists dive into the political fray
  
• Watch Full Episodes Online of PBS NewsHour on PBS | Scientists consider running for office

What members of Congress have formal training in natural sciences?

• Undergraduate:
  • Seth Moulton - physics
  • Jacky Rosen - computer science
  • Louise Slaughter - microbiology
• Doctoral degrees: mathematician
  • Jerry McNerney - mathematics
  • Timothy Murphy - psychology
  • Bill Foster - physics

According to an already prepared compilation of most recent Roll Call profiles I could find, the members of the 113th Congress had the following educational backgrounds:

• 21 members of the House and 1 Senator have no educational degree beyond a high school diploma.
• 1 Senator and 2 Representatives were Rhodes Scholars, 2 Representatives were Fulbright Scholars, 2 Representatives were Marshall Scholars, and 1 Representative was a Truman Scholar.
• 3 Representatives and one Senator are graduates of the U.S. Military Academy and 1 Senator and 1 Representative graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy.
• 22 Members of the House and 3 Senators have a medical degree.
• 19 House Representatives have doctoral (Ph.D. or D.Phil.) degrees.
• 169 Members of the House (38% of the House) and 57 Senators (57% of the Senate), held law degrees.
• 85 members of the House and 14 Senators earned a master’s degree as their highest education degree.
• 7 Members of the House have associate’s degrees as their highest degree, and 1 House Member has an L.P.N. (nursing) degree.

Based on that, I'd say that there are lots of members of Congress who are adept at writing and reading laws, but far, far fewer who have any particular acumen associated with the specific subject matters about which those laws are written. That suggests that on many issues, we have what amounts to lawyers fixing the plumbing, something that makes about as much sense as having plumbers defending us in court. It's thus no wonder the laws we get passed are such a mess.

Now, I don't have anything for or against attorneys, but I know too that "the people" are not well served by having 200+ members of Congress who are especially adept in the arts of argumentation and rhetoric. I mean really. Could one find a better "recipe" for making legislating policy as politically charged as it possibly can be? You see a major difference between attorneys and holders of other advanced degrees is that attorneys are very good at framing one's words so they "tell the story" the attorney wants them to tell and mean what the attorney wants them to mean. Holders of other advanced degrees are adept at obtaining and sharing pertinent facts, analyzing them on their merits and demerits, and arriving at a sound conclusion. That's something scientists -- social and natural -- are very good at doing.

With regard to one social science, economics, the representation in Congress of individuals specifically trained in the that disciple is appallingly thin. 2011 Analysis found that at the time, about 80% of Congress had no business or economics training. Then as now, much of what Congress legislates pertains directly to business and economics.

There are today even fewer Members having a keen understanding of economics. How many? Only one that I'm aware of. In 2014, there were about 25 Members who had some formal training in economics and/or business.

Economics isn't as precise a science as mathematics (not a science at all, but rather the language of sciences), chemistry or biology for we can't use "real life" trial and error on whole or partial segments of society to evaluate economic theorems, but it's far from consisting overwhelmingly of "POMA" ideas, being about on par in intellectual rigor with theoretical physics yet more speculative than is experimental physics. That said, there're few economic principles and conclusions about which economists overwhelmingly agree, but one of them -- the superiority of net gains over net cost accruing from free trade as contrasted with constrained trade -- of happens to be "front and center" among today's "hot button" issues.

What has Rep. Dave Brat of the Freedom Caucus to say about free trade? [1]

Chuck Todd: In general, what are your views of trade agreements, are you open to big free trade agreements or not?

Dave Brat: Yeah, I’m a free trader. After World War II, the GATT brought tariffs roughly from 50% down to about 4% or less today. And that’s been good for European trade with us. We set up our arch-enemies Japan and Germany after the war, started trading with them, and it enriched all of us. I have a win-win positive view about relationships with other countries that respect the rule of law. So we have to move forward on that front.​

Here's the thing, given the rise and demonstrated merits of empirical economics, it just doesn't make sense in this day and age that so few members of Congress have any formal and deep [2] understanding of economics.

Note:

1. Don't get me wrong, Brat can also be somewhat disingenuous. For instance, a few weeks ago, he enjoined in a line of discussion about "elites" as though they are some group of people that does not include him. C'mon now. Does it get any more elite than being both a PhD and one of the ~535 individuals who legislate the fate of the U.S., and in a broader sense, much of the "free" world?
   
   In another instance, Brat describes his "world view" of the healthcare/health insurance debate is that the "target" to fix is the market failures associated with providing and paying for the healthcare of people, particularly people having pre-existing conditions. (I agree with that in principle.) He goes on to say, however, that Democrats say the "healthcare debate" is all about coverage, which he describes as being the wrong "non Econ 101" approach to the matter. That's disingenuous insofar as what is developing a solution that attenuates for the market failure associated with providing and paying for the healthcare of people but coverage?
   
   Personally, I suspect that he knows, as do several economists I've spoken with, that the market failure in need of fixing is too "hot" to actually fix using the logic of Econ 101. The best one likely can do, at least in the near term and given the constraints of the current political structure in which we function, is "pseudo-fix" it, that is, "put a bandage on it and treat the symptoms rather than the cause."
   
   That said, at least when one engages on a "peer level" with him about economics, the man won't sit there and deny/oppose the verity and application of what he knows to be so about economics and its principles and laws. That's a good start for it means one can at times have a meaningful discussion, one that isn't burdened with political ideology, with the man. That's more than I can say for many elected and appointed officials, or even USMB members.
2. "Deep" in this context being, IMO, at least an undergraduate minor (at least 18 credit hours) in economics. I don't really care that one officially has a minor; I care that one has the requisite and suitably rigorous/comprehensive training associated with obtaining a minor. One does not need a PhD in economics, but one who'd vote on laws about economic matters should have enough knowledge of economics to be comfortable reading critical published works about economics and to know what to look for and focus on when reading them. Context is everything.
   
   It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion [, voting on an "economics-heavy" bill, for example, is both quite loud and very vociferous] on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
   ― Murray N. Rothbard

 

[Spare_change]

Frankly, it is nonsensical to assume, or demand, that members of Congress be fully conversant in anything - much less the sciences. That's what experts are for ... on any given day, a congressman may be discussing economics, medical science, eco-science, sociological impacts, and a dozen other subjects.

Congressmen do not delve into the subject of laws - they look at the impact. The impact is determined by the experts, who, in turn, SHOULD brief Congress.

 

[JoeNormal]

Frankly, it is nonsensical to assume, or demand, that members of Congress be fully conversant in anything - much less the sciences. That's what experts are for ... on any given day, a congressman may be discussing economics, medical science, eco-science, sociological impacts, and a dozen other subjects.

Congressmen do not delve into the subject of laws - they look at the impact. The impact is determined by the experts, who, in turn, SHOULD brief Congress.

The whole point of this thread is that increasingly, they dismiss the experts.

 

[NightFox]

Who in their right mind would want to go from being a productive member of society working in a technical field to being a complete waste of air politician?

 

[Spare_change]

Frankly, it is nonsensical to assume, or demand, that members of Congress be fully conversant in anything - much less the sciences. That's what experts are for ... on any given day, a congressman may be discussing economics, medical science, eco-science, sociological impacts, and a dozen other subjects.

Congressmen do not delve into the subject of laws - they look at the impact. The impact is determined by the experts, who, in turn, SHOULD brief Congress.

The whole point of this thread is that increasingly, they dismiss the experts.

... or, is it possible, that the so-called 'experts' have created a skepticism in their findings by tainting their presentations based on their personal politics.

When the "impartial experts" have lost, or discarded, their mantle of impartiality, they become nothing more than another political wonk. When we see these so-called experts manipulating the data, and lying about the findings, is it any wonder that they are viewed as nothing more than another propagandist more interested in feathering their own nest?

 

[JoeNormal]

Frankly, it is nonsensical to assume, or demand, that members of Congress be fully conversant in anything - much less the sciences. That's what experts are for ... on any given day, a congressman may be discussing economics, medical science, eco-science, sociological impacts, and a dozen other subjects.

Congressmen do not delve into the subject of laws - they look at the impact. The impact is determined by the experts, who, in turn, SHOULD brief Congress.

The whole point of this thread is that increasingly, they dismiss the experts.

... or, is it possible, that the so-called 'experts' have created a skepticism in their findings by tainting their presentations based on their personal politics.

When the "impartial experts" have lost, or discarded, their mantle of impartiality, they become nothing more than another political wonk. When we see these so-called experts manipulating the data, and lying about the findings, is it any wonder that they are viewed as nothing more than another propagandist more interested in feathering their own nest?

No field of endeavor eliminates human bias completely but spend some time in college courses trying to absorb some of the information that they are trying to convey and question it as you like. I think you will find as I have that scientists have the highest integrity of any profession that I have encountered.

 

[whitehall]

One thing is that you can count on is the close minded lock step of alleged "environmental scientists" when they refer to the theory of man made global warming as "proven". How can it be a theory and proven at the same time? Whistle blowers in the environmental movement have told us for years that figures are often fudged to keep the lucrative "government grants" coming. As for vaccines it is apparent that the "scientists" involved in vaccine research may be in cahoots with big Pharm when they refuse to address real concerns about disabilities and deaths among children who receive the vaccine. Another issue is forcing young girls to be inoculated with a questionable vaccine for a rare cancer related to promiscuous sexual activity when they are not sexually active.

 

[Spare_change]

Frankly, it is nonsensical to assume, or demand, that members of Congress be fully conversant in anything - much less the sciences. That's what experts are for ... on any given day, a congressman may be discussing economics, medical science, eco-science, sociological impacts, and a dozen other subjects.

Congressmen do not delve into the subject of laws - they look at the impact. The impact is determined by the experts, who, in turn, SHOULD brief Congress.

The whole point of this thread is that increasingly, they dismiss the experts.

... or, is it possible, that the so-called 'experts' have created a skepticism in their findings by tainting their presentations based on their personal politics.

When the "impartial experts" have lost, or discarded, their mantle of impartiality, they become nothing more than another political wonk. When we see these so-called experts manipulating the data, and lying about the findings, is it any wonder that they are viewed as nothing more than another propagandist more interested in feathering their own nest?

No field of endeavor eliminates human bias completely but spend some time in college courses trying to absorb some of the information that they are trying to convey and question it as you like. I think you will find as I have that scientists have the highest integrity of any profession that I have encountered.

In my chosen field, I have worked with a vast array of scientists (space exploration). I have found them to be no different (though more self absorbed) than most people - prone to mistakes, interested in further their personal position, and VERY susceptible to pressure and politics.

 

[JoeNormal]

Frankly, it is nonsensical to assume, or demand, that members of Congress be fully conversant in anything - much less the sciences. That's what experts are for ... on any given day, a congressman may be discussing economics, medical science, eco-science, sociological impacts, and a dozen other subjects.

Congressmen do not delve into the subject of laws - they look at the impact. The impact is determined by the experts, who, in turn, SHOULD brief Congress.

The whole point of this thread is that increasingly, they dismiss the experts.

... or, is it possible, that the so-called 'experts' have created a skepticism in their findings by tainting their presentations based on their personal politics.

When the "impartial experts" have lost, or discarded, their mantle of impartiality, they become nothing more than another political wonk. When we see these so-called experts manipulating the data, and lying about the findings, is it any wonder that they are viewed as nothing more than another propagandist more interested in feathering their own nest?

No field of endeavor eliminates human bias completely but spend some time in college courses trying to absorb some of the information that they are trying to convey and question it as you like. I think you will find as I have that scientists have the highest integrity of any profession that I have encountered.

In my chosen field, I have worked with a vast array of scientists (space exploration). I have found them to be no different (though more self absorbed) than most people - prone to mistakes, interested in further their personal position, and VERY susceptible to pressure and politics.

I find that hard to believe unless they're scientists-turned-managers of some form.

 

[baileyn45]

A quote I heard years ago, "What do scientists know? More than you do and less than they think."

 

[JoeNormal]

A quote I heard years ago, "What do scientists know? More than you do and less than they think."

That's pretty good. Might be true too.

 

[Spare_change]

Frankly, it is nonsensical to assume, or demand, that members of Congress be fully conversant in anything - much less the sciences. That's what experts are for ... on any given day, a congressman may be discussing economics, medical science, eco-science, sociological impacts, and a dozen other subjects.

Congressmen do not delve into the subject of laws - they look at the impact. The impact is determined by the experts, who, in turn, SHOULD brief Congress.

The whole point of this thread is that increasingly, they dismiss the experts.

... or, is it possible, that the so-called 'experts' have created a skepticism in their findings by tainting their presentations based on their personal politics.

When the "impartial experts" have lost, or discarded, their mantle of impartiality, they become nothing more than another political wonk. When we see these so-called experts manipulating the data, and lying about the findings, is it any wonder that they are viewed as nothing more than another propagandist more interested in feathering their own nest?

No field of endeavor eliminates human bias completely but spend some time in college courses trying to absorb some of the information that they are trying to convey and question it as you like. I think you will find as I have that scientists have the highest integrity of any profession that I have encountered.

In my chosen field, I have worked with a vast array of scientists (space exploration). I have found them to be no different (though more self absorbed) than most people - prone to mistakes, interested in further their personal position, and VERY susceptible to pressure and politics.

I find that hard to believe unless they're scientists-turned-managers of some form.

Then, you are destined to be disappointed.

Scientists are no less political, and self motivated, than anybody else. Most are more interested in furthering their own position - and opinion - than they are in furthering their science.