Michael Tobben

Science Fiction

Despite a war, weak economy and other major problems, a controversial science debate arises, surprising many. The Nature article “Science scorned” makes the case that an ideology continues to grow and spread amongst the conservative right, which sees science as a progressive enemy. The author claims that Obama set an agenda that supports educational scientific research and advancement. The author also claims an increasing conservative resentment for science prevents this advancement. This argument, however, contains many holes and unfairly labels all conservatives as anti-science nuts inhibiting the left wing liberals’ ability to develop the United States as a scientific superpower. The article “Science scorned” exaggerates data, heavily citing a few extreme conservatives’ words, overall exaggerating the issue more than necessary while this country contains so many more important struggling or failing institutions.

This nature article opens by discussing the conservative political front’s increasing resentment of science. To cite this claim, it quotes the Rush Limbaugh’s ranting and the so called “Tea Partier’s” political actions. While the conservative right wing includes these individuals, they have known extreme polar rightist views, and act closed mindedly and headstrong. And while it is not to say that all conservative think more moderately and open-mindedly than these people, a great deal of them identify with a more moderate standpoint and do not find science a part of the “four corners of deceit”. In fact, the article “Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain” claims that “political orientation … occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights”. This indicates that a supposedly right-wing supported opposition of science, most likely exists within the ideology of some liberals as well.

The nature article also asserts that President Obama full understands and has all the best advice to deal with science-related legislation. This, however, may not ring true. Contrary to the nature article, an article from The New York Times claims that “Flawed science advice for Obama” exists. His science advisor is Dr. John P. Holdren, a scientist who has confidently made predictions that have been nowhere near accurate. The article describes his scientific critiques and comments as “strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance”. As far as climate change, he is reputed to have a “tendency to conflate the science of climate change with prescriptions to cut greenhouse emissions”. This means that he believes only in trying to solve climate change based on the assumptions that anthropogenic causes are the primary reasons for global warming. Even though the scientific community strongly supports this well researched theory, simply cutting greenhouse emissions will not necessarily provide a panacea for environmental strains that the planet faces. These qualities of Dr. Holdren characterize him as closed minded and bearing an elitist mentality about his intelligence and his job. This closed minded elitist, Obama’s science advisor, influences the future of our country, and yet despite his disappointing track record and displeasing persona, the liberals are emphatic about pushing science forward under his supervision, labeling any right-wingers who oppose any scientific expansion, however large or small, hindrances to American Progress.

Despite all the criticism of the right’s opposition to funding extensive scientific advancement (some of which many consider morally unacceptable), Obama’s issues that he considers top priority do not at all concern science. In fact, according to the list provided in the article “How Many "Top Priority" Issues Does Obama Have?” his only goals that concern science are “Energy Security” and “Environmental Protection”. While these unquestionably important focuses of study and advancement deserve attention, it shows that Obama places much rater value on many other topics than the scientific advancement the liberal media credits him. In fact, according to the article “Obama's devastating Nasa cuts”, Obama has drastically cut America’s space program. NASA’s exploration, advancement, and “space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world” and were “so effective in motivating the young to do ‘what has never been done before’.” Yet despite the program’s overwhelming achievement, Obama has completely cut the division of NASA designed to push forward space exploration, the very program that captures the minds of the youth and helps spark their interest in science. When one examine Obama’s agenda, it becomes clear that he has placed science on the back burner, provoking wonder as to why the liberal media even bashes the conservatives’ slight scientific resistance.

Based on the information these articles provide, it doesn’t seem fit for the left political left to incessantly bash the right’s somewhat resistive attitude towards scientific advancement. Both sides have mixed opinions about science, Obama’s choice for science advisor is less than exciting, and it doesn’t even seem that the President himself is that keen on pushing America to becoming a forerunner in scientific achievement and innovation. However, even if all this were not true, if Obama fully backed science with all his power and was well-advised on the issue, science does not come close to America’s biggest concern presently. The economy is still in a ditch, America is entrenched in debt and unemployment does not seem to be decreasing. In our present situation, America would do best to focus on solving the financial problems facing our country and its citizens before trying to move forward with science.

“Science Scorned.” Nature.” 09 September 2010. Volume 467. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467133a.html

Tierney, John. The New York Times. “Flawed science advice for Obama?.” 12 December 2008. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/flawed-science-advice-for-obama/

Gellene. Denise. The Los Angeles Times. “Study finds left-wing brain, right wing brain..” 10 September 2010. http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,2687256.story

Knoller, Mark. CBS News. “How Many "Top Priority" Issues Does Obama Have?” 13 August 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013622-503544.html

Guardian.co.uk. “Obamas devastating Nasa Cuts.” 15 April 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/15/obama-nasa-space-neil-armstrong