Much of the hoopla over the global warming
controversy seems to be the “shocking revelation” that science is being used by (and thus ostensibly soiled and manipulated) by politicians. So? Science has always had a strong thread in and of politics, just like all other human endeavors, including religion. The only non-political human endeavor is probably solitude – and it’s only apolitical to the solitaire. As soon as one other wonders about or tries to find the hermit, his solitude becomes part of a political debate. All human interaction includes politics. The more people, the more complicated the politics.
Science as the ultimate objectivity has always been an ideal not a fact. Scientists are human, too – with mortgages and egos and tuition debt, too. Most research is at some level politically funded – whether the funder is the Catholic Church, the Exxon Corporation, or government. (We all know how apolitical government is. Right?) Who gets the money for what research – in our culture often a variable of potential profit in the research product – is part of the process. Unfortunately, money as the engine of research comes with a built-in corruptibility factor – sometimes very subtle, sometimes openly controversial, but rarely completely out of the picture. Which is worse: good science with bad intentions or bad science with good intentions? Add to that debate “whose science” and “whose morality” then define “good” and “bad.” Yeah, I know.
Still there’s good scientists (and some not-so-good) working hard in their labs zealously pursuing “truth.” There probably is even such a thing as “pure” science happening somewhere in some labs. But even the most ardent and disciplined objectivists among us are still subjective human beings. The process leading up to who gets a lab, how they design the experiment and who does what with any discoveries will always be a function of politics. The “science” that reaches the masses will always have spin. Most of the “masses” wouldn’t understand the science if you spoon fed it to them straight from the scientist’s mouth. I have great respect for Al Gore’s intentions. I voted for him when he ran for President partially because of his environmental stance. I have warmist leanings. I am not, however, blind to the inconvenient truth that Al Gore is not a scientist – he “just plays one in a movie.” But science without politics wouldn’t get very far.
And with well-established criteria for peer review and reproducible results, science tends to self-regulate. The global warming controversy really emphasizes the stability of the scientific ideal not its erosion. It’s the old torpedo effect of all human progress – we launch out of the tube in the general direction of our target, we stray off course, we make corrections.
Challenge and controversy have always been a part of scientific progress, whether the battle is between scientists and institutions, or scientists and other scientists. Today’s unavoidable transparency just makes the noise a lot louder and faster – out where we all get to watch and comment. And after all, it is science that brought us the internet – the vehicle of its own exposure.
