Science for the masses

Chris Mooney and Matt Yglesias are having some fun over at TPM Cafe discussing issues surrounding Chris' book The Republican War on Science. Matt asks,

"Do the various strands of science abuse your book charts really amount to a unified "war on science" or are we seeing two rather different campaigns that just happen to coincide within the Republican political coalition? "

Which is something I get asked every so often when bringing up the topic, in fact Atrios and I briefly chatted about it last night. Honestly, it does sound somewhat conspiratorial when one posits that the pro-industry portion of the modern conservative movement really wants students to learn "intelligent" design for their own future financial gain. But Mooney brings this into some more perspective in his TPM Cafe post

"Where are the Big Pharma CEOs standing up and defending the importance of teaching evolution? Where are the fossil fuel company CEOs--whose industry depends on the decomposed remains of ancient animals and plants--rebuking a young-earth view of the world? "

I'd say that at least unconciously, if not in cool calculation, they support the teaching of alternatives to evolution. Why wouldn't they? [brief note: my 'they' refers to the business end of a corporation, the ones who tend to be libertarian conservatives] First off, their kids won't ever get taught anything less than the best scientific knowledge available at the time when they send them to private schools or upper class neighborhood public schools. Secondly, if anywhere beteen 40-50% of the population believe there is significant doubt in what scientists have to say about evolution, it isn't going to lead to sudden brain drain because the other 50% of potential PhDs is still a heck of a lot of people to choose from! On the flip side, a "healthy" scepticism of science could only help in the long run: today kids are implanted with the seed of doubt about evolution, tomorrow they'll be much more willing to accept supposed doubt about global warming or species extinction. After all, convincing people that one of the most basic elements of a rounded science education--the theory of evolution--is controversial to the point of literally throwing it out and starting anew is pretty darned difficult. How much easier is it to 'swiftboat' these very same people that the complex mathematical models used to describe long-term climate models or the intricacies of genetic diversity in ecological systems remains "controversial?"

Effectively modifying individual habits to produce societal changes necessary in implementing science policy requires lots of effort on the part of policymakers and decades of time. For instance, while the recent increase in gasoline prices have brought about a slight shift in consumer habits it hasn't made us all conservationists overnight. The hurdle the pro-science side has to overcome in a democracy at least half-way filled with people who are "sceptical" of science is much greater than in an enlightened and educated society. I suspect CEOs wary of environmental and health regulations know or at least sense this numbers game and are comfortable enough with the religious right to allow these sorts of embarassing shenanigans.