Here’s your weekly Science Matters column by David Suzuki with Faisal Moola.
From all the election hoopla in the United States, Canadians would be
forgiven for thinking that our American friends were about to head to
the polls tomorrow, not in November. But while the American process
might seem tad drawn out to some, it does give voters a chance to get
to know their candidates – something that Canadians would do well to
follow, as we too may be facing an election in 2008.
What does politics have to do with science? Plenty, actually.
Science and the application of it through technology are two of the
most important forces shaping our world today. But contrary to what
many people in our electronic age may believe, science and technology
aren’t independent forces that operate on their own. Instead, they are
very much subject to the values and beliefs of a society. And the
primary way in which those values and beliefs are expressed is through
the choices made by its citizens – particularly who they choose to lead
them.
Governments influence science in many ways. At a basic level,
governments provide funding to scientific institutions and thus get to
decide what kind of research gets funded and what kind does not. If a
government has a particular ideology and does not support specific
research, you can bet that its funding will be cut, regardless of the
research’s scientific potential.
At the other end, where established science might be able to shed
light on the most prudent public policies to pursue, again the
government has a direct hand, by choosing to accept or ignore the
advice of experts in the field. Once again, prevailing government
ideologies can and do trump science.
One of the most obvious examples of this has been in the United
States under President Bush. Throughout Mr. Bush’s presidency, his
administration not only ignored the advice of scientists, but actively
sought to downplay the voices of scientists who disagreed with its
point of view – even to the extent of censoring key documents and
removing scientists who disagreed.
Reporter Chris Mooney documents many examples of such political
interference in his book The Republican War on Science. And according
to the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists: “In recent years,
scientists who work for and advise the federal government have seen
their work manipulated, suppressed and distorted, while agencies have
systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical
scientific information.” The organization has a petition, signed by
12,000 scientists, calling on the government to restore scientific
integrity in the United States.
Naturally, this has many scientists in the U.S. watching the
American race closely. A recent edition of the journal Science even
offered profiles on the various candidates from both parties and where
they appear to stand on certain science-related issues. From science
education in schools to climate change and stem cell research, these
issues are very important and will hopefully come to the forefront
during the campaign.
With Canadians possibly heading to the polls for a federal election
this year or next, we should be asking similar questions of our own
candidates. Although Canada has largely been spared some of the attacks
on science that have been cropping up in the United States, the ability
to ignore prevailing scientific opinions and craft poorly researched
science policy is by no means limited to American politicians.
Voter apathy is a serious problem in Canada, where voter turnout is
shrinking. That’s not good for science and it’s not good for democracy.
If you care about the future of science and the future of our country,
make sure you too get to know your candidates. Ultimately the science
we pursue is based on our values, so this is your chance to mould the
shape of things to come.
Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.
