I have noted a tendency by some to believe that the science community, especially the university-associated science community (which in some cases is almost ALL that community) leans liberal. I believe this is wrong. Most scientists -- not all, but Id say the vast majority -- are largely apolitical. They go with the data.* Anyway, in an example of this non-partisanship, the lead editorial in the 21 Feb 2014 Science advocated that we should build the Keystone XL Pipeline. Though the editorialist certainly acknowledges the risks, and the need to build with the intent of minimizing them, she feels that the scientific body of evidence verifies that it can be done with excellent safety. And should be done. I myself do not have a clearly defined posture here. But I was interested to see this position taken and articulated so clearly, and with an eye towards primarily the scientific questions. (The public-policy questions were not the focus of the editorial.) ___________________ * This is not at all to say that scientists lack political affiliations; many do. Rather, especially as regards their area(s) of expertise, I find that their political positions in such arenas are molded by the data, even if it does not fit some broader ideologic bent. This is as distinct from the too-oft seen approach by politicians, and even humans, of trying to fit the scientific fact base into their ideology (generally by emphasizing supportive data and ignoring contravailing information, even if the ratio is 1:1000; which is, Im sorry to report, nuts).
Posted on: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 04:08:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015