Scientists and Engineers for America

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-10-04 09:51am

I didn't really know if this was SLAM or N&P...

Today a group of scientists and concerned citizens launch a new organization, Scientists and Engineers for America, dedicated to electing public officials who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.

The principal role of the science and technology community is to advance human understanding. But there are times when this is not enough. Scientists and engineers have a right, indeed an obligation, to enter the political debate when the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interests ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research.

We ask every American who values scientific integrity in decision-making to join us in endorsing a basic Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers. Together we will elect new leadership beginning in 2006, and we will continue to work to elect reasonable leadership in federal, state and local elections for years to come.

America needs your help. Will you join us?

Americans should demand that all candidates support the following Bill of Rights:

1. Federal policy shall be made using the best available science and analysis both from within the government and from the rest of society.

2. The federal government shall never intentionally publish false or misleading scientific information nor post such material on federal websites.

3. Scientists conducting research or analysis with federal funding shall be free to discuss and publish the results of unclassified research after a reasonable period of review without fear of intimidation or adverse personnel action.

4. Federal employees reporting what they believe to be manipulation of federal research and analysis for political or ideological reasons should be free to bring this information to the attention of the public and shall be protected from intimidation, retribution or adverse personnel action by effective enforcement of Whistle Blower laws.

5. No scientists should fear reprisals or intimidation because of the results of their research.

6. Appointments to federal scientific advisory committees shall be based on the candidate’s scientific qualifications, not political affiliation or ideology.

7. The federal government shall not support any science education program that includes instruction in concepts that are derived from ideology and not science.

8. While scientists may elect to withhold methods or studies that might be misused there shall be no federal prohibition on publication of basic research results. Decisions made about blocking the release of information about specific applied research and technologies for reasons of national security shall be the result of a transparent process. Classification decisions shall be made by trained professionals using a clear set of published criteria and there shall be a clear process for challenging decisions and a process for remedying mistakes and abuses of the classification system.

I'm sure at least a few people here might be interested

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-04 09:53am

They won't get any traction. I am dead serious when I say that association with scientists will actually harm their movement in most of America, because scientists are perceived as tools of an evil secular liberal elite (the word "elite" here apparently meaning "the people who do not have all the political power but who we resent as if they do"). Even many liberals and moderates think of scientists as effete snobs who have no relation to the real world.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-10-04 10:14am

I think the problem is that all the fundie 'tards look at that and do one of two things.

(1) "See, see? Evilutionists are trying to manipulate the political process and Democracy and spread their Falsehoods! This is all part of the conspiracy, finally made clear!" (declaring this as evidence that they were right all along about liberal elite scientists opressing them)

or

(2) "I totally support this organization, because it will finally bring the Scientific Truth about how false evolution, global warming, et cetera to government and give it legitimacy!" (because they don't know what Scientific Truth actually is)

Compound this with the problem that this organization is likely too idealistic and honest to be a Lobby. An organization like SEA isn't going to wet their beaks with loads of crooked cash/gifts and exotic vacations and endless free pussy like the Religious Right (or any other successful Lobby), they are going to try and talk them into it with rational arguments and the odd legitimate donation. Who do you think is going to win that fight?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-04 10:45am

As I said elsewhere, politics tends to employ prejudice as its weapon of choice. What prejudices can a scientific lobby take advantage of?

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-10-04 02:25pm

Scientists are too few in number, and in no way organized to compete with Nascar dads for political power. Nascar Dads. Nobody listens to the pencil-necks who wave their fancy degrees about either.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-10-04 02:49pm

Scientists? That's like saying "Yay Technocracy" or "Yay Technicism" in a crowd of neo-luddites. Of course, these projects might be far more rational than anything the world has to offer today, but who's going to listen?

Rational aruments like simple facts that scientific progress is the basis of human development, human welfare and even human future itself just don't sound with most of the people in the United States.

"What? These scientific kooks? I know better than to vote for their kind".

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-10-04 06:15pm

Nephtys wrote:Scientists are too few in number, and in no way organized to compete with Nascar dads for political power. Nascar Dads. Nobody listens to the pencil-necks who wave their fancy degrees about either.

So...why is it a BAD thing that they're trying to get more organised?
I've already signed up on their mailing list (I'm just a CS student, but I'd rather be affiliated with scientists than, well, idiots). I hope many others do as well.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-10-04 06:23pm

Molyneux wrote:
Nephtys wrote:Scientists are too few in number, and in no way organized to compete with Nascar dads for political power. Nascar Dads. Nobody listens to the pencil-necks who wave their fancy degrees about either.
So...why is it a BAD thing that they're trying to get more organised?
I've already signed up on their mailing list (I'm just a CS student, but I'd rather be affiliated with scientists than, well, idiots). I hope many others do as well.

It's not a bad thing. It just won't do crap. There's a STIGMA against scientists in particular in America. People seem to think that they know jack crap. You know, in the same manner that the average joe factory worker is responsable for doing 'real good' while Scientists are commonly viewed as book-learned idiots with 'no sense' and 'just talk'.

I met enough of those types in College for crying out loud. In California. Imagine how it is in the redstates.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-10-04 07:19pm

Nephtys wrote:
Molyneux wrote:
Nephtys wrote:Scientists are too few in number, and in no way organized to compete with Nascar dads for political power. Nascar Dads. Nobody listens to the pencil-necks who wave their fancy degrees about either.
So...why is it a BAD thing that they're trying to get more organised?
I've already signed up on their mailing list (I'm just a CS student, but I'd rather be affiliated with scientists than, well, idiots). I hope many others do as well.
It's not a bad thing. It just won't do crap. There's a STIGMA against scientists in particular in America. People seem to think that they know jack crap. You know, in the same manner that the average joe factory worker is responsable for doing 'real good' while Scientists are commonly viewed as book-learned idiots with 'no sense' and 'just talk'.

I met enough of those types in College for crying out loud. In California. Imagine how it is in the redstates.

Well, if there's a stigma, there must be some way to change it. And if this SEA thing doesn't hurt, then it just might help.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-10-04 07:52pm

There's a way to kill the Stigma: Reverse a long, long chain of cultural views of professionals.

Think of it like this. When in US History, classes, culture or whatnot have the skills of an elite been portrayed as 'creating' the country, instead of 'the hard work of common folk'? The only time I can think of is the turn of the century Industrial explosions, where Rockafeller and Vanderbilt and whatever were heralded as captains of Industry. Note then that it soon became soured with bad conditions then and the Depression.

When on Earth have science, math, medical, etc people in common media been portrayed as anything but a nerd of some kind, or at best, a soft-spoken non-confrontational individual, or some arrogant prick?

Etc. You need more Einsteins about, who are both real scientists and celebrities. We really don't need kids idolizing Paris Hilton, any band member, or most athletes.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-04 08:51pm

You can't just reverse that. The people who make popular entertainment have undue influence over such perceptions, and those people generally hated math and science when they were in school.

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2006-10-04 10:06pm

Darth Wong wrote: because scientists are perceived as tools of an evil secular liberal elite

There's a guy named Craig Anderson who has a show on sunday nights on a local ABC channel, which broadcasts from out around Midland International Airport. I saw part of his show last sunday and he talked briefly about this. He quoted this:

dedicated to electing public officials who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.

and then dismissed them as liberals out to attack creationism and concluded by saying the world has gone crazy.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-04 10:11pm

It's interesting how beliefs are treated like races, in that you are assumed to be a bigot or an asshole if you attack them. Oh no, the only "reasonable" person is one who "respects all beliefs"; this is language that was lifted straight out of racial tolerance handbooks. But a belief is not a race; it is quite possible for a belief to be wrong. That's how conservatives have hijacked the language of tolerance for their own ends. Now, any idiotic jack-ass idea deserves respect, simply because people believe in it. So when scientists and engineers say "no, that's just plain wrong", they're painted as "close-minded" and perhaps even bigoted.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-10-04 11:10pm

Nephtys wrote:There's a way to kill the Stigma: Reverse a long, long chain of cultural views of professionals.

Think of it like this. When in US History, classes, culture or whatnot have the skills of an elite been portrayed as 'creating' the country, instead of 'the hard work of common folk'? The only time I can think of is the turn of the century Industrial explosions, where Rockafeller and Vanderbilt and whatever were heralded as captains of Industry. Note then that it soon became soured with bad conditions then and the Depression.

When on Earth have science, math, medical, etc people in common media been portrayed as anything but a nerd of some kind, or at best, a soft-spoken non-confrontational individual, or some arrogant prick?

Etc. You need more Einsteins about, who are both real scientists and celebrities. We really don't need kids idolizing Paris Hilton, any band member, or most athletes.

Oh, there was a period in the 50s and 60s when scientists were actually portrayed popularly as either heroes or important to the heroes. Two classic SF films of the era, War Of The Worlds and Earth V. The Flying Saucers have physicists as the heroes (though in the former, Gene Barry is rendered unable to do anything because of a fear-crazed mob). The TV series (and earlier movie) Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea featured a central character who was not only a military officer but the builder of the advanced submarine Seaview. Wehner Von Braun practically had his own TV show within a Disney show. A good number of movies of the era also had your bog-standard evil scientists, of course, but the 50s was when we were scared shitless that the Soviets were surpassing us technologically so there actually was a serious drive to popularise science and education to encourage the young to take up these fields. In the 60s, the space programme was running hot and we were headed for the moon, so scientists and astronauts still carried a lot of popular clout. The 70s were the turning point when the popularity of the sciences and scientists began to erode again and Neo-Luddism began its rise. Today, things are about at their nadir as far as the perceived value of education and the sciences are reckoned and I have to wonder if the trend has yet to hit bottom.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2006-10-06 04:35pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Nephtys wrote:There's a way to kill the Stigma: Reverse a long, long chain of cultural views of professionals.

Think of it like this. When in US History, classes, culture or whatnot have the skills of an elite been portrayed as 'creating' the country, instead of 'the hard work of common folk'? The only time I can think of is the turn of the century Industrial explosions, where Rockafeller and Vanderbilt and whatever were heralded as captains of Industry. Note then that it soon became soured with bad conditions then and the Depression.

When on Earth have science, math, medical, etc people in common media been portrayed as anything but a nerd of some kind, or at best, a soft-spoken non-confrontational individual, or some arrogant prick?

Etc. You need more Einsteins about, who are both real scientists and celebrities. We really don't need kids idolizing Paris Hilton, any band member, or most athletes.
Oh, there was a period in the 50s and 60s when scientists were actually portrayed popularly as either heroes or important to the heroes. Two classic SF films of the era, War Of The Worlds and Earth V. The Flying Saucers have physicists as the heroes (though in the former, Gene Barry is rendered unable to do anything because of a fear-crazed mob). The TV series (and earlier movie) Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea featured a central character who was not only a military officer but the builder of the advanced submarine Seaview. Wehner Von Braun practically had his own TV show within a Disney show. A good number of movies of the era also had your bog-standard evil scientists, of course, but the 50s was when we were scared shitless that the Soviets were surpassing us technologically so there actually was a serious drive to popularise science and education to encourage the young to take up these fields. In the 60s, the space programme was running hot and we were headed for the moon, so scientists and astronauts still carried a lot of popular clout. The 70s were the turning point when the popularity of the sciences and scientists began to erode again and Neo-Luddism began its rise. Today, things are about at their nadir as far as the perceived value of education and the sciences are reckoned and I have to wonder if the trend has yet to hit bottom.

I'd dare say stuff like Our Friend, The Atom would be laughed at.

Can't forget 3 Mile Island either. The former popularity of nuclear power and it's demonization since it's inception is a microcosm of anti-intellectual streaks in American culture.

In th The Simpsons, who's the most evil person in town?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-06 04:47pm

In a perverse way, scientists and engineers need to fail in order to make America appreciate science and engineering again. As long as they keep doing their jobs with aplomb, they can be taken for granted.

Look at the Space Race; why did Americans throw their support behind it? Because Sputnik went up first. Americans are blase about science and technology because science and engineering have been so effective. If scientists and engineers utterly failed in their attempts to solve the coming oil crisis by finding alternatives, and society suffered massive social and economic devastation as a result, then all of a sudden people might appreciate the importance of science and engineering again.

Scientists and engineers are like the abused, unappreciated wife who makes sure the house is clean and everything works, but whose only reward is to get yelled at if she doesn't bring the slippers the moment hubbie comes home. Her contributions won't be noticed unless she goes on strike or leaves.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-06 05:10pm

I personally consider science and engineering to be the foundation of American success, and it's one of the things at which America is still the best at in the world. It's a shame that the average Americans consider scientists and engineers as someone unworthy of respect.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-10-06 05:22pm

I think one reason the sciences have decreased in prestige and public perception, is because nowadays everyone is supposed to go to college. A good sized chunk go for some basically nonsense degree that's like a highschool education +1, like most of the humanities when not pursued to a Doctorate.

So, while a Ph.D Biologist is going 'Look. Evolution happens. Everything points to it. Shut up'...

The populace is going 'Oh yeah. I went to college too (...for a BS in english/philosophy/whatever). I don't believe you'.

or 'I don't need no book-learnin'. Shut up, pencilneck'

or the 'College never was an option for me, or are for my kids now. Shut up so I can concentrate on making ends meet'.

Stuff like that I think still detracts from the influence of scientists, as well as that entire 60/70's antiauthoritarian movement, and the countermovement of extreme conservatism.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-10-06 05:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:If scientists and engineers utterly failed in their attempts to solve the coming oil crisis by finding alternatives, and society suffered massive social and economic devastation as a result, then all of a sudden people might appreciate the importance of science and engineering again.

Will people appreciate the importance of science and engineering again, or will they demonize them for failing? It strikes me that the gut reaction could go either way: peopel might say, "Hey! Wasn't life so much better when we appreciated science?"; or, they may say, "Goddamn scientists didn't pull through. I knew they couldn't be trusted!"

I personally think we'll have to wait for a generation after the oil crash for people to begin to appreciate the sciences again: the hubris of modern society is great enough that I think they'll hold onto their preconceptions through the crisis, and use it to justify the preconceptions, rather than adjust their view of the world to fit the actual reasons for the crash.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-06 06:51pm

Surlethe wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:If scientists and engineers utterly failed in their attempts to solve the coming oil crisis by finding alternatives, and society suffered massive social and economic devastation as a result, then all of a sudden people might appreciate the importance of science and engineering again.
Will people appreciate the importance of science and engineering again, or will they demonize them for failing? It strikes me that the gut reaction could go either way: peopel might say, "Hey! Wasn't life so much better when we appreciated science?"; or, they may say, "Goddamn scientists didn't pull through. I knew they couldn't be trusted!"

They'll say "Holy shit, we need to spend more money on science and engineering to solve this problem", which will in turn force them to recognize the value of the profession. Their initial reaction doesn't matter; circumstances would force them to admit the importance of science and engineering, because if they don't, the problem will not get solved. Even most of the fundies are going to realize on some level that neglecting science and praying to God won't magically solve the problem, and even if they don't, the moderates will certainly lose any and all sympathy they had for the fundie position.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-10-07 04:08pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Surlethe wrote:Will people appreciate the importance of science and engineering again, or will they demonize them for failing? It strikes me that the gut reaction could go either way: peopel might say, "Hey! Wasn't life so much better when we appreciated science?"; or, they may say, "Goddamn scientists didn't pull through. I knew they couldn't be trusted!"
They'll say "Holy shit, we need to spend more money on science and engineering to solve this problem", which will in turn force them to recognize the value of the profession. Their initial reaction doesn't matter; circumstances would force them to admit the importance of science and engineering, because if they don't, the problem will not get solved. Even most of the fundies are going to realize on some level that neglecting science and praying to God won't magically solve the problem, and even if they don't, the moderates will certainly lose any and all sympathy they had for the fundie position.

At least while the crisis is on though. After science and engineering get going again and things return to a relative norm, the fundies will once again add the failure to their list of reasons why you can't trust science and use the bible. Fundies STILL use Piltdown man in the evolution/creationism "debate" (and I use the word 'debate' extremely loosely)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-08 11:07am

Darth Servo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:They'll say "Holy shit, we need to spend more money on science and engineering to solve this problem", which will in turn force them to recognize the value of the profession. Their initial reaction doesn't matter; circumstances would force them to admit the importance of science and engineering, because if they don't, the problem will not get solved. Even most of the fundies are going to realize on some level that neglecting science and praying to God won't magically solve the problem, and even if they don't, the moderates will certainly lose any and all sympathy they had for the fundie position.
At least while the crisis is on though. After science and engineering get going again and things return to a relative norm, the fundies will once again add the failure to their list of reasons why you can't trust science and use the bible. Fundies STILL use Piltdown man in the evolution/creationism "debate" (and I use the word 'debate' extremely loosely)

I'm not talking about rabid fundies; I'm talking about the bulk of the population. Rabid fundies are beyond reach, but the real problem is that the "moderates" are starting to adopt their attitude toward science. Since the moderates do still live in the real world (unlike fundies who basically live in a world of make-believe), the moderates would realize the catastrophic effects of neglecting science and engineering if such a disaster ever happened. They wouldn't go along with the fundies in believing that prayer is the answer; they would want concrete solutions, they would throw money at the only people they know can provide those solutions, and they would admit that the fundie way is wrong.