Science Is Inherently Political

As I write this it is the eve of Earth Day, when scientists and supporters of science are preparing to March for Science, in Washington DC and hundreds of other cities.  Many of my friends will be marching, while others have decided not to.  March or not, there are many justifiable reasons to decide either way.  But don’t say, “I’m not marching because science shouldn’t be political.”

I’ve got news for you: Science is political, science is inherently political, like it or not.  It surely need not be partisan- but it can’t help be political.

I am a professional in the field of earth and environmental sciences, and my discipline has always been about as political as any topic get.   Galileo, pursuing what we’d now call planetary science, was persecuted by the Roman Inquisition and put under house arrest by the authorities for showing that the Earth was not the center of the universe.  After Benjamin Franklin’s experiments on atmospheric electricity, he and his lightning rods were blamed for subsequent environmental disasters and almost squelched by politicians claiming Franklin had disrupted the balance of Nature.    

Today, petroleum geology experiences political magnification from all ends of the political spectrum, whether it’s “drill, baby, drill”, or “divest from all fossil fuels now.”  Many of the same issues are associated with mining and extraction of minerals, sand, and other resources investigated by economic geologists.  Environmental geologists deal with pollution of the air, water, and land- subject to strident political debates over whether contaminants should be regulated, and to what levels.  My hydrology colleagues deal with water, probably the most contentious political issue in the West  (legend has it that it was Mark Twain who said, “whiskey is for drinking: water is for fighting over”).  The seemingly-benign weather forecast can be a political hot potato: living on the border, at one time Federally-employed meteorologists in my city could get into big trouble with the powers-that-be for forecasting or warning about storms in an area “out of their jurisdiction.”  Even plate tectonics, the unifying paradigm of modern geology, offends those who are certain that the Earth is only thousands of years old.

Two of the most politically controversial issues in science are central to my discipline: evolution, and climate change.  Here in Texas, State House representatives filed bills in the current legislative session to constrain the teaching of evolution and to bar evidence of climate change from being used in many court cases.  Other states have attempted to legislate away sea level rise, and to mandate the teaching of young-Earth creationism.  You may not want science to be political, but politicians will keep feeling free to intervene in our science.

So march, or not: there are many legitimate reasons you may choose to publicly demonstrate, or to take a pass on it.  The scientific method is objective irrespective of political party, and Mother Earth doesn’t care whether you’re progressive or conservative, marching or staying home;  Gaia’s going to do what Gaia’s going to do.  Science shouldn’t be partisan.   But don’t say that it can’t be politicized- that train left a long, long time ago.