It has been widely noted that U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, who's in electoral trouble in 2006, has been distancing himself from his old buddies in the ID movement. Santorum has flip flopped on the closely linked questions of whether ID counts as science and whether it should be taught in public school classes, and he's backed away from the Dover case (which was set in his home state). But Santorum isn't going to get off that easy.
The senator's close ties to the ID movement remain, and they're fully in evidence at this link. It goes to the Amazon.com page for a forthcoming book celebrating the work of ID movement progenitor Phillip E. Johnson. The book is titled, Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson And the Intelligent Design Movement. Who wrote the foreword? Why, Rick Santorum.
I have long thought that, if science supporters want a political scalp, Santorum ought to be on their top list of targets. He's a strong sympathizer with anti-evolutionists, and thus on the wrong side of what is easily the most clear-cut political science issue of the day. Moreover, he's politically vulnerable. If Santorum goes down and scientists in Pennsylvania have rallied against him (something I've seen no evidence of as yet), presumably they can then claim some of the credit. And that, in turn, might deter future politicians from supporting anti-science causes.
Of course, if Santorum is dead anyway politically, it may not count as much of a victory. But the experience might nevertheless teach scientists a thing or two about engaging in politics in defense of scientific integrity and, especially, the theory of evolution. When it comes to politics, scientists really are in need of basic training.
- Log in to post comments
Agreed. As a trained scientist with A PhD in Biology, where would I go to receive my basic training in politics? Do you have any can't-miss resources to recommend for the uninitiated?
The ID wars are plodding forward and I feel like I'm wasting my energy explaining over and over why ID isn't science to people who don't want to hear it. I would love to learn how to use my time more effectively and politically.
cpg
P.S. Great blog. I just found it -- I need to spend some time digging through the archives.
I have been thinking the same thought. Who would best serve our interest in the political realm.
I prefer judge organizations by their effectiveness and not whether they totally agree with my narrow position. I've always admired the NRA's ability to deliver over the long haul. Science needs such a ruthless and relentless warrior. As does secular society.
"...where would I go to receive my basic training in politics?"
Start with Machiavelli; highly readable and painfully true. In particular, The Discourses warns of what happens to a republic when wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few.
This idea strikes me as very, very dangerous. For scientists, as opposed to the far broader category of 'science supporters', to get involved in personal partisan politics, to the point where they are targeting individual politicians for defeat, would dramatically worsen the current situation.
Scientists and science, despite the howls of a few loud factions and their politican friends, are currently very well respected in this country.
The end result of your suggestion would inevitably be the partisanization of science. Scientists' credibility, and implicitly their results, would be challenged merely by the accusations of partisanship.
This would go a long way towards diminishing the generally esteemed role that scientists play in our culture. And thus this would go a long way towards undermining the current broad (if quiet) support for scientific research of so many kinds.
Scientists should certainly speak up about policy, and should also certainly work much harder on education of the broader public. But they are correct to stay out of personal and partisan politics.
Actually, you're missing an even bigger story in Pennsylvania Chris. The guy who's opposing Santorum (DNC annointed Bob Casey Jr.) is also a pro life Catholic. A few days ago, Bob Casey Jr. endorsed Alito, sure to be a friend of religious zealots and ID enthusiasts for decades to come...I mean, you have to give me something positive to vote for...
Philip Shropshire
www.threeriversonline.com
PS: There is an underfunded candidate that's running against Bob Casey Jr. Chuck Pennacchio is underfunded but he's pro science and pro stem cell research (yet another area where Bob Casey Jr. fails miserably).
Rick is an embarassment many times over for many, many things. I moved back to Pennsylvania in 1993, heard this looney man on the radio from time to time, and was shocked to hear that not only was he my Congressional rep, he lived about a mile away from me. At the time, anyway. Now he "represents" Pennsylvania while living almost full time in Virginia.
Rick is deeply in the pocket of many big businesses in Pennsylvania, especially AccuWeather which is based in Pennsylvania and sells weather information to many media outlets, including Web sites. Rick wanted to prevent the National Weather Service from posting its weather information FOR FREE on the Web. Luckily, this bill got voted down by a slightly more rational Congress.
To hear the Republicans have put Rick in charge of an ethics committee is an incredible joke. Next, he'll probably be put in charge of some kind of science committee, which would be an even bigger joke.
Laurie Mann
http://www.dumprick.com
Maybe so but there are a *lot* of people who are fence-sitting on important issues because they don't understand them -- at least near me. The howls of the loud factions sound reasonable and carry a lot of weight, esp. when not challenged. President Bush is pushing ID, fer chrissake.
P.M., I understand your concerns about keeping science non-partisan but how can you defend that non-partisanship if you are not aware of how your work is being distorted in political circles. Honestly, I had never thought much about ID, for example, being a political tool. It's being sold as a cultural/religious issue and I just accepted that until reading some of Chris Mooney's work.
Knowledge is always a good thing and I think a lot of scientists are in the dark about the role they play in politics, me included. I don't have political aspirations but I do have a desire to encourage critical thinking and sound reasoning based on solid evidence -- if the political process is inhibiting that, don't I have a responsibility at least learn why and how.
By way of full disclosure, I am no longer a scientist but I do have a PhD in biology, I'm published, have received federal grants, etc. I know the process.
Anyway, interesting stuff.
I certainly believe scientists should speak out to correct the record when their work is being distorted, whoever is doing the distortion. That is far different from organizing scientists into political groups advocating election and defeat of specific candidates.
That job will have to be left to 'science supporters' -- which should be fine, since that is (hopefully) a much bigger group anyway.