There’s been a lot of talk recently of attempting to get trained scientists into political positions. Critics may look at this as another overreaction of the sore-loser, whining liberals (since most scientists are).
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
But for most scientists, it’s more of a matter of….
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
In science, we attempt to gather evidence to test some hypothesis about the nature of things. So it becomes particularly frustrating to hear both sides of a scientific debate being discussed as if simply naming the opposing view was enough to make it stand on equal footing. It becomes particularly terrifying when the policies based on that debate may have a bearing on our survival.
Besides the big issues, I think many scientists view their political involvement as potentially helpful in a more general way. We spend years learning how to think critically and analytically, after all. The political action committee, 314 Action, is trying to get more scientists into political office and has been seeing a surge of interest as scientists want to do something!
The idea appeals very much to me, but I also have a strong, in-group bias. And I see a couple potential problems.
The counter to this argument is that it is precisely because scientists have stayed so apolitical in the face of possible annihilation that no one takes it seriously. I’m not sure I believe this, though. I think scientists have been pretty outspoken for at least a decade about climate change. Is that just me?
It seems like there are better alternatives. Perhaps spending our Saturdays going door to door asking people if they know of the redeeming power of substantially cutting carbon emissions, and warning them of the apocalypse should they reject our teachings!
