Why Should Science Have Special Status in Federal Budget Debates?
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Public Policy, and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University. Nisbet studies the role of communication and advocacy in policymaking and public affairs, focusing on debates over over climate change, energy, and sustainability. Among awards and recognition, Nisbet has been a Visiting Shorenstein Fellow on Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, a Health Policy Investigator at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and a Google Science Communication Fellow. In 2011, the editors at the journal Nature recommended Nisbet's research as “essential reading for anyone with a passing interest in the climate change debate,” and the New Republic highlighted his work as a “fascinating dissection of the shortcomings of climate activism."
Over at USA Today, Dan Vergano's Science Snapshop blog is one of the top places to track news about science research, science policy, and the connections between science and culture.
Today he spotlights the emerging debate over possible cuts to the budgets of science agencies such as NSF and NIH. Typically, Republicans try to marshal support for cuts by dramatizing what they believe is unworthy research such as a $750,000 grant "to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players."
Advocates often respond to Republicans calling scientists "eggheads" by labeling such rhetoric as "anti-intellectual," as Naomi Oreskes does in the USA Today article. Others bend the comments of GOP lawmakers to a larger narrative arc about a continued "Republican War on Science."
But what these tit-for-tat rhetorical salvos obscure is the need for a very important discussion about why science is considered to have special status when it comes to hard decisions in balancing government spending in an era of massive deficits, a historically depressed economy, and a public desperately needing immediate help from social programs.
Scientists typically claim special status when it comes to these budget debates, but on what grounds is science special while other areas of the budget are not? Perhaps only defense spending and science spending receive as much special status consideration. This special status correlates with the high levels of trust and admiration that both institutions have in the public mind. (Surveys show that only the military scores higher in public trust and admiration than scientists, while every other major institution has plummeted in public trust over the last 20 years. See overview.)
Whether or not lawmakers should interfere with peer-review decisions on what research agencies should fund and whether or not science should have steadily consistent if not linear growth in funding are two separate questions. The former deserves defending and the latter is one that is important for science organizations to join with others in deliberating.
This needed dialogue involves much more than defending a single grant project or the peer-review system for deciding these grants. Instead it involves creating opportunities for direct public and stakeholder input into where they see specific areas of science spending falling as a priority relative to other programs and portions of the budget. If the public had the opportunity to learn about the different perspectives, discuss them with others, and then voice their preferences, where would they end up?
As we move into a new era of very difficult budget decisions, at what level do scientists use their unrivaled communication capital and perceived special status to join with other organizations, raising questions about continued massive spending on defense while cutting social programs and science funding? Moreover, within this new era of budget limits, what areas of scientific research should be prioritized in meeting and addressing society's needs?
And finally, as a matter of social responsibility, do scientists have an obligation to accept that reductions in scientific spending are necessary to preserve social programs?
New research links urban planning and political polarization.
- Canadian researchers find that excessive reliance on cars changes political views.
- Decades of car-centric urban planning normalized unsustainable lifestyles.
- People who prefer personal comfort elect politicians who represent such views.
Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.
- America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
- Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
- Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Science and the squishiness of the human mind. The joys of wearing whatever the hell you want, and so much more.
- Why can't we have a human-sized cat tree?
- What would happen if you got a spoonful of a neutron star?
- Why do we insist on dividing our wonderfully complex selves into boring little boxes
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.