Misplaced Pages

Politicization of science: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:18, 24 October 2003 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,008 edits No need to attribute reality to "critics" - the hypotheticality of Seitz is not in doubt.← Previous edit Revision as of 21:22, 24 October 2003 edit undoEloquence (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,329 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 7: Line 7:
:"Here is an example. I'd love to know more facts about halogen compounds that come out of volcanoes. If I went to a federal agency and asked to get funded for such a study, they would probably throw me out. Why? Because looking at this question assumes the need to look further into issues related to possible sources of presumed ]. It would also suggest that the concept that man-made ]s are the greatest threat to the ozone layer may not tell the whole story." :"Here is an example. I'd love to know more facts about halogen compounds that come out of volcanoes. If I went to a federal agency and asked to get funded for such a study, they would probably throw me out. Why? Because looking at this question assumes the need to look further into issues related to possible sources of presumed ]. It would also suggest that the concept that man-made ]s are the greatest threat to the ozone layer may not tell the whole story."


However, Seitz' example is purely hypothetical -- he thinks his proposal would "probably" be throw out but advances no instances of research proposals that have been thrown out. Also, climate skeptics like ] who continue to receive public funding. However, Seitz' example is purely hypothetical -- he thinks his proposal would "probably" be throw out but advances no instances of research proposals that have been thrown out. Critics point out that climate skeptics like ] continue to receive public funding.


Advocates with views similar to Seitz's charge that political and environmental groups have deliberately created the notion that the "science is settled", while their critics say precisely the opposite. Advocates with views similar to Seitz's charge that political and environmental groups have deliberately created the notion that the "science is settled", while their critics say precisely the opposite.

Revision as of 21:22, 24 October 2003

The politicization of science occurs when governments, businesses, and lobby groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research, especially when this influence retards the progress of science.

Global warming and ozone depletion

Frederick Seitz charges that politicization makes it virtually impossible for scientists to get funding to pursue hypotheses which run counter to prevailing ideas about ozone depletion.

"Here is an example. I'd love to know more facts about halogen compounds that come out of volcanoes. If I went to a federal agency and asked to get funded for such a study, they would probably throw me out. Why? Because looking at this question assumes the need to look further into issues related to possible sources of presumed depletion of ozone. It would also suggest that the concept that man-made CFCs are the greatest threat to the ozone layer may not tell the whole story."

However, Seitz' example is purely hypothetical -- he thinks his proposal would "probably" be throw out but advances no instances of research proposals that have been thrown out. Critics point out that climate skeptics like Richard Lindzen continue to receive public funding.

Advocates with views similar to Seitz's charge that political and environmental groups have deliberately created the notion that the "science is settled", while their critics say precisely the opposite.

Media critics Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton, for example, claim that Seitz's allegation does not take into account that business interests in the United States, where the consensus on global warming and ozone depletion is probably weakest, have deliberately created the notion that the science is "not settled", and have convinced governments to support that line. They wrote in the 1998 article "The PR Plot To Overheat The Earth" (Earth Island Journal):

In 1991, a US corporate coalition including the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electrical Institute created a public relations front called the "Information Council for the Environment" (ICE). ICE launched a $500,000 advertising and PR blitz to, in ICE's own words, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
(...)
To boost its credibility, ICE created a Scientific Advisory Panel that featured Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia. Michaels has been the leading scientific naysayer on global warming.
The industry's propaganda campaign also created a bevy of other front groups. The group currently leading the charge is the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a creation of the Burson-Marsteller PR firm. From its founding in 1989 until the summer of 1997, GCC operated out of the offices of the National Association of Manufacturers. Its members include Amoco, the American Forest & Paper Association, American Petroleum Institute, Shell Oil, Texaco, Chevron, Chrysler, the US Chamber of Commerce, Exxon, General Motors, Ford Motor, and more than 40 other corporations and trade associations.

Burton and Rampton charge that the claims about the "politicization of science" regarding global warming are part of a deliberately engineered public relations campaign to reduce the impact any international treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, might have on the business interests sponsoring the campaigns.

The "Waxman report"

In the United States, Democratic Congressman Henry A. Waxman and the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee have released a report in August 2003 which concluded that the administration of George W. Bush has politicized science in many areas and appointed key decision makers who shared the administration position on major issues. The issues analyzed in the report are:

External link