The Republican War on Science

Loss of the Senate to the Republicans will put both houses of Congress in the hands of a political party that prides itself on scientific ignorance.  What we may have to look forward to can be seen in the ongoing actions of the House's Science, Space and Technology Committee.  Look no further than the head of the committee, climate change skeptic Lamar Smith (R-TX).  "He voted to bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, voted no several times on tax credits for renewable energy and incentives for energy production and conservation, voted against raising fuel efficiency standards, and rejected implementation of the Kyoto Protocol." [Daily Kos, October 20]

Besides his climate change position, he's also known for introducing SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in 2011.  The bill was tabled after generating widespread condemnation for its radically harsh policy in dealing with copyright infringement and other issues.  SOPA would have allowed the Justice Department to "pull foreign sites 'dedicated' to copyright infringement out of the DNS system and search engine results — effectively altering the way the internet works. It's a hugely controversial bill that takes a scorched-earth approach to solving the thorny problem of copyright infringement on the web." [The Verge, Dec. 2011]

For the past 18 months, Congressman Smith has spear-headed a program more suited to a totalitarian state than to a democracy.  He has been waging an assault on the peer-review process for granting National Science Foundation grants.  "He’s issued a barrage of press releases that ridicule specific awards, championed legislation that would alter NSF’s peer-review system and slash funding for the social science programs that have supported much of the research he has questioned, and berated NSF officials for providing what he considers to be inadequate explanations of their funding decisions." [Daily Kos, October 20]  It's all part of the Republican attempt to slash non-military funding so they won't have to raise taxes on the wealthy, and Lamar is now applying the "national interest" criterion to his investigation of research grants - that is, national interest in his opinion.  He evidently thinks this is a better way to conduct scientific research than the long-established peer-review process so critical to scientific progress.  

Although Smith directs much of his wrath at research projects in the social sciences, Tim McDonnell points out in an October 17 Mother Jones post, "some of the biggest-ticket items up for public dissection focus on climate change. They include a $3 million grant awarded in 2008 to study how federal agencies can better communicate climate science to the public and a $5.6 million award to a Columbia University team to carry out public education work on the impacts of climate change at the poles. You know, totally frivolous questions that have nothing to do with the 'national interest' on things like rising sea levels, epic releases of methane, US military engagement in the Arctic, new areas for offshore oil drilling, and 35,000 stranded walruses."

What a surprise! Not only do they deny human-induced climate change, they want to make sure money is not "wasted" on giving people the facts.  In the US, climate change has not yet reached the stage where public indignation against a lack of action will decide elections.  For most, its effects are too far in the future - unlike in Brazil, where the record-breaking drought has caused some water reservoirs to drop to 4% of normal level and may decide the presidential election  The Financial Times analyzes the situation in an October 19 article.  São Paulo, Brazil's largest city, is experiencing water shortages, early closings of schools and health centers, and police escorts for emergency water trucks.  FT reports: "...bars and restaurants in tourist areas have been urging their customers not to use the toilets...While the drought has already ravaged Brazil’s coffee and sugar crops and hit local companies,...it could weaken the business-friendly PSDB party ahead of Brazil’s tightly fought presidential elections next week."

Ignorance and misinformation have long been arrows in the quiver of Republican political tools. How else do you explain their ability to have anyone but the very rich vote for them?  How else do you explain their ability to get poor and middle class whites to vote consistently against their own interests as well as the common good?  

While the Republicans were still in the process of selecting a candidate for the 2012 Presidential election, Paul Krugman led off an op-ed piece quoting John Huntsman, Jr., a Republican who was "willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the anti-science party." After Krugman discusses then-candidate Rick Perry's views on evolution and climate change and eventual-candidate Mitt Romney's backtracking on climate change, he concludes that while we don't know who will "win next year's presidential election,...the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect."  [NYTimes, August 28, 2011]

Related

For more on the confrontation between the NSF and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, see: Battle between NSF and House science committee escalates: How did it get this bad? [ScienceInsider, October 2]

For more on the political success of the Republicans' Southern Strategy in spite of the economic downside of their policies, see Where Are the Hardest Places to Live in the U.S.? [NYTimes, June 26]