McCain's Projector Comment and Scientific Earmarks

Many scientifically-inclined voters were a bit shocked by McCain's comment criticizing Obama for supporting a "3 million dollar earmark for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago." The "overhead projector" in question was actually a top of the line piece of equipment for the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, and many did not consider this an earmark.

University of Chicago professor, Andrey Kravstov, responded in a comment on the NYTimes website (Hat-tip: Cosmic Variance):

The way Sen. McCain has phrased it suggests that Sen. Obama approved spending $3 million on an old-fashioned piece of office equipment (overhead projector). The 3 million is actually for an upgrade of the SkyTheater - a full dome projection system, which is probably the main attraction of the Adler Planetarium and is quite sophisticated and impressive piece of equipment.

I find it appalling that Sen. McCain would call a science education tool for public (largely children) for a historic planetarium with millions of visitors a year a wasteful earmark. The planetarium's focus, as stated on their website (http://adlerplanetarium.org) is "on inspiring young people, particularly women and minorities, to pursue careers in science." Is an investment in such public facility at the time when US competitiveness in math and sciences is a constant source of alarm a waste?

First, let me just say that, yes, I think that McCain's comment indicates an ignorance and lack of interest in scientific education, and, yes, I think that it is appropriate for the government to spend money on these types of enterprises. I find it somewhat derogatory for McCain to call this a "pork barrel earmark" -- like it was a named highway or subsidy to grapefruit growers. (Whether it should be the federal government providing the funding and whether privates funds are not available are another matter.)

However, I am open-minded enough to recognize my own bias on this subject. One man's pork is another man's vital government interest. Political economy is not usually the business of distinguishing the important from the irrelevant, but comparing their relative value of many vital interests.

And scientists can be at times quite cavalier about the moral superiority of the scientific endeavor. I remember that at one of the Science Communication Consortium things David Goldston suggested that one of the frustrations of being on the Hill is that scientists often walk around with airs like they are the only ones being purely altruistic. This is untrue -- scientists are pretty altruistic, but not completely -- and infuriating to others who believe they also have the public good in mind.

Peter Fiske in his Political Scientist column also takes this belief to task:

We scientists believe that we are, collectively and individually, engaged in an endeavor that merits public support. In the extreme, there is bred in our culture of science a level of entitlement to public financial support for research. When members of Congress fail to pass funding increase upon funding increase, year after year, the scientific community reacts with disbelief and indignation.

The first law of successful politics is recognizing that you are, in fact, operating within a political process. It's important to acknowledge that as a scientist you are involved, to varying degrees, in multiple political processes.

First -- and most central to your career -- is the political process of doing science and influencing the opinions of your scientific peers. The foundation of this political process is good scientific work -- but to ensure that your science (along with your career) flourishes, you have to engage the scientific community smartly and effectively, with honor and integrity.

But being at your most effective as a scientist also requires constant engagement in a broader sense, not just with the politicians in Washington, D.C., but with the people around you who vote them into office. Given the intense and busy nature of most scientific careers, it is easy to feel that one simply has NO TIME for such constructive engagement. Furthermore, most scientists are given no guidance about the most effective and time-efficient methods of civic engagement. But rather than look down on the process of politics, the successful scientists and engineers of the future will find ways of understanding and participating in "politics" while not losing sight of the higher ideals of their scientific community.

Fiske has some constructive suggestions for scientists coming to terms with the political nature of our endeavor.

My point with all of this is not to defend McCain's comments. Frankly, they strike me as a cheap shot. (There have been plenty of those of late.) My point is that in the process of arguing for scientific funding we should not be surprised or incensed when other people label scientific funding "earmarks." For the majority of the public, science funding is not morally privileged, and scientists can come across as an angry and self-righteous interest group.

(As an aside, I was a little appalled when I heard an a representative of the auto industry lobbying for a bailout of the Big 3 compare such an investment to scientific research. I fail to see how paying the Big 3 automakers for their own incompetence is like paying scientists to produce research. At least scientists have held up their end of the bargain. I doubt most people would buy that argument, but that she would make it suggests that at least part of the public views the two industries as equivalent.)

Rather than treating science funding as some special moral mission, we need to think about it in context of other funding priorities. We need to emphasize the importance of science over the long-term in providing a competent work force and a growing economy. Saying, "how dare they!" (and I am not suggesting that this is how Andrey Kravstov put it), simply won't cut it.