AP Photo
by Jonathan D. Moreno
Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum has declared that:
“(w)hen it comes to the management of the Earth, they [the Democrats] are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology, and using the resources we have to be able to make sure that we have a quality of life in this country and (that we) maintain a good and stable environment.”
Until recently in America, science hasn’t been far down the list from motherhood and apple pie. At one time a candidate for office would have been sorely tempted to kiss Albert Einstein’s balding pate along with that of an infant. So why does Rick Santorum feel compelled to assure us that he is pro-science? And why now?
As I’ve noted before, the idea that one would be for or against science is something new in America. In the 19th century, physics, engineering, and chemistry were regnant, and biology was still largely observational rather than experimental, so the great debates about evolution and the origins of life were yet to come. Partly for this reason, conservative religious beliefs were quite compatible with a cohesive moral vision through the late 19th century. Ministers and naturalists could agree on their beliefs about nature. Santorum would have been quite comfortable with many pastoral sermons about the importance of science in American churches in the 1880s. He surely would have wanted to greet John Glenn on his return from orbit 50 years ago.
What has changed this American sensibility? Why does a cultural conservative feel the need to announce he is pro-science?
The answer lies in the advent of experimental biology and modern genetics, which has stimulated political controversies like those over cloning and stem cells and invoked old images of Dr. Frankenstein instead of Dr. Einstein. Similarly, the modern environmental movement pits scientific “experts” against … opponents of government regulation. Science has become a cultural wedge issue, so that a candidate like Rick Santorum feels compelled to recapture science from the secular elite.
Underlying this conflict, therefore, is a mistrust of scientists themselves, of their perceived hubris. When the National Academy of Sciences supports human embryonic stem cell research and 97 percent of scientists say that climate change is caused by humans, a cultural divide is opened up that is not only new for American, it is worrisome. Keep going down that list of American tropes — mom, apple pie, and science, and very soon you reach opportunity and progress. In my book The Body Politic I argue that without a fundamental sense that the innovators can be trusted it’s hard to see how a nation musters the will to lead the world in an era in which leadership in science is not optional.
Jonathan D. Moreno is a Senior Fellow at American Progress, where he edits the magazine, Science Progress. This piece was originally published at the Huffington Post.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
This man is not running to occupy the Oval Office. He wants to occupy the Sistine Chapel. He is dangerous and young American had better wake up and see his kind taking over our country.
Oh, man-not the Sistine! Blimey-is nothing sacred? Try St Jude’s Rectory for the Criminally Insane, the Savanarola Memorial Chapel, but please leave Michelangelo (of whose personal life Ricky would not approve)out of it.
Santorem support of science is mainly a support of the kind of engineering that can be used for rapid exploitation of non-renewable resources–the faster the better. The kind of far reaching exploration that provides basic understanding, from the molecular to the cosmos he considered just political.
From my perspective the science divide only opened up over the climate issue. Even resistance to evolution was more about embracing religion than rejecting science.
More striking to me was the history divide when conservatives seemed to forget international agreements that forbade invasion and torture signed in 1946 (in response to WW2).
you’re forgetting about evolution and numerous other aspects, it’s change that religious people fear, I’ve heard the anti-science mantra for decades.
The Moody Institute of Science put out videos (films actually) that purported to show through scientific methods that only god could have made things the way they are. That was the 1950s and 60s.
On the other hand science is capable of creating destruction on a huge scale, that’s enough to scare most people.
You’ve raised a fair point, but I worry that it might be counterproductive to overstate the point. All of us are periodically in some form of denial. Climate denial just happens to be the most dangerous form. Unfortunately it is also the most politically polarized.
Climate Defenders need to create a welcoming environment that Climate Deniers can swim to as their ship sinks.
And Obama forgot the absolute requirement under international treaty law (thus US law) to prosecute those guilty of torture and of ordering torture. He made the novel argument, particularly for a ‘Professor’ of Law, that these crimes were ‘all in the past’, as are most things.
Science that improves the bottom line of the Capitalistic tally sheet – GOOD!
Science that improves the survivability of humanity at the expense of the quarterly cash flow on the capitalistic tally sheet – BAD!
I agree with Leif here. A good example of that is the story of Ignacio Chapela – the UC Berkeley microbial ecologist known for his work on the flow of transgenes in to wild Mexican maize. He opposed an agreement between UC Berkeley and (agricultural biotechnology company) Syngenta (formerly Novartis) for joint research that included $25 million to support biotechnology research at UCB in return for a degree of publication scrutiny and trade secrecy. He was denied tenure initially seemingly because of this opposition. The event highlights the research priorities in American universities where biotech sciences (‘good science’ as Leif would say) would be funded, and agroecology (science not connected with profit) is not funded.
Santorum in an election would get at least 45% of the vote- which says something about the general literacy of the American Public.
Here at PG we try and get the message out about the dangers we face as a civilization with ACC. And those voting for someone like Santorum? Who knows what they represent.
‘Ignorance in action’, as Goethe feared.
actually, this misses the point: Santorum has no concept of the difference between Science and Engineering. literally.
How many times was Santorum voted ‘Dumbest in Congress’ beating a star-studded field of eejits?
This is the mainstream media’s fault. Politicians lie all the time these days, and nobody calls them on it.
Remember WMD, and “Climategate”? Swallowed whole, including at the New York Times.
I suspect that’s because the mainstream is locked into the idea of selling papers by promoting controversy rather than offering insight. They emphasize the ‘heat’ rather then the ‘light’. NYT, WaPo, BBC, Huff, they are all playing the same game (at least up til my last visit a month ago). Fortunately the bookmarks tab has a delete button.
The left can play that game too if we only grew a backbone. Use all of Fox and the media’s controversy and scandal strategies and turn them against the right. No one’s going to call us on it after all. Headlines are most important. “Keystone Pipeline Threatens to Pollute Water Supply” “Republicans Deny Existence of People Suffering from Pollution” “Climate Skeptics funded by Oil Industry”. These headlines are necessary but a blog like this isn’t enough. The left needs to get its own radio talk shows and tabloids.
Kidnap Rupert and replace him with a look-alike-say that chap who played Blofeld in the Bond films. Easy.