Chris Mooney wrote a book called "The Republican War On Science."

While it was obviously (from its title) of partisan intent, it was well researched, and did make a good case for it. And it even purported to attempt to appear bi-partisan, by pointing out a few examples of political attacks on science from the left. However, it gave them extremely short shrift, in my opinion. Here's just one example of the kind of thing with which he could have balanced the book, had he truly wanted to.

My problem with Chris' book is that it was too polemical, when he had an opportunity to make a serious point--that science is continually under assault by people with an agenda from all points on the political compass. By attempting to make it a partisan issue, it results in a misdiagnosis of the problem. After all, if it's only a "Republican" war on science, then the solution is simple--elect Democrats. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex than that, and the notion that it's not holds us back from finding a real solution.

Excellent point, Rand. The Bush administration's stance on science has been less than stellar. I think one of the things driving Mooney and those who argue the same point is that the Republican "war" is motivated by religious means. I'm sure they would qualify the post-modernist, leftist assaults on some areas of research as not being as severe.

In my view, putting a limit on research in the name of religion is just as bad as putting limits in the name of "protecting the oppressed."

Unfortunately, Phil Plaitt, with his normally excellent Bad Astronomy site, has turned it into another anti-Bush diatribe. He cites Mooney often.

Another thing about the argument that Republicans are marching on science: it's often deployed in the effort to make all disagreements over someone's favored policy implication of a particular finding into a denegration of science itself. See famous non-Republican Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason" for instance.

I lost a dollar in a vending machine this morning...naturally, it's the Republicans' fault. Yes, supporting free-market capitalism and lower taxes leads to an aversion of all things scientific. Similarly, supporting abortion on demand and race/gender-based preferences leads to the path of pure scientific enlightenment...yep, pure scientific enlightenment and cannibalism.

If you let the government control, direct, or influence anything, then by definition, you will disagree with what they are doing about half of the time. If you're lucky.

I think it's a general attack by a group at a subject that's personally threatening,or at least threatens to expose unfavorable thoughts.I've been known to remark,the Democrats are as frightened(at least) by discussions of ethnicity and IQ (which doesn'r actually exist) as the Republicans are about evolution.Actually,probably more,since the evolution debate is over and the IQ studies are a constant spin off of affirmative action

Glad to hear someone else is a little bored with Phil's new posts. His (non-political) science stuff is still good, though.

Good post, Rand. Any position (scientific, religious, political) will have detractors. I think the big adjustment we're going through now has to do with the internet and other media sources allow a much faster, louder response from detractors.

Phil Plait's 'Bad Astronomy' was a must read excellent site for me. No longer. He's got full blown BDS. I once posted a polite counter view to his political polemics suggesting the site stick to science and was instantly banned from posting at the site, the only time it's ever happened to me.

Rand, you're missing the point. Democrats aren't attacking science--they're attacking vicious lying PROPAGANDA that purports to be "science". (Or at least that's how they view the situation.)

Another few years of cooling and the Dems are going to have a lot of 'splainin to do.

The Minority Report on Climate Science.

Note the US Gov. url.

Rand, you're missing the point. Democrats aren't attacking science--they're attacking vicious lying PROPAGANDA that purports to be "science". (Or at least that's how they view the situation.)

Of course that's how they see the situation. But really, is their disagreement based on science or is it based on facts that they simply disagree with. Is it "vicious lying PROPAGANDA" whenever anyone disagrees with human-caused global warming? Is that why they automatically try to demonize and discredit those who disagree with their opinions? In that regard, their tactics are similar to how the old Soviet Union used to put dissidents into mental institutions. After all, anyone who disagreed with the "workers paradise" had to be crazy. Today, anyone who disagrees with AGW has to be a lair, a fraud, and/or on the take from the oil companies.

The problem leftists have is that they're never challenged. They go through school, university, all their professors are leftists and they never hear contrary views presented intelligently and sympathetically. It's all one-sided. They can't see anything but their own points of view because that's all they've ever known.

The Bush administration's stance on science has been less than stellar.

Apart from refusing to apply federal funds to embryonic stem cell research, how so? I would even contend that said decision to deny funding is fiscally wise -- other, far-more-promising avenues of stem cell research are being funded very generously by private industry.

Just why should the federal government pour our money into something the private sector finds uninteresting as an investment because it offers so little promise of success compared to numerous other ways to arrive at the same result?

As a scientist myself (first two degrees in geology, then soil chemistry) I believe the current administration's approach to science funding hasn't really been all that bad.

I'm far more concerned by the pressures of political correctness in research, for example climate. There's a lot of important research to do in paleo-climate (a topic I understand fairly well) but nobody's even asking for money to do it because they don't like the implications (for their careers) of what it might show.

Similarly, it's acceptable for research to show differences between men and women, but only if the difference favors women. Thus it can be reported that males constitute a much higher percentage of the profoundly retarded -- Y chromosome and all that -- but look what happened to the former president of Harvard when he observed that the same effect probably prevailed at the genius end of the distribution as well.