I hope the executive branch's "war on science" era ends in January. Heading into a period of climate change, tight fossil energy supplies, growing trouble with food-borne illnesses, declining health metrics, etc, we clearly don't need a bunch of creationists and climate-change deniers knocking about the White House.
At the same time, I hope we don't swing in the direction of a hyper-corporate vision of science: the idea that big problems demand big solutions -- the kind conveniently offered by really big companies.
Well, Wired recently got the Obama campaign to reveal its five main science advisors. Unhappily, two of them have ties to the biotech industry: Sharon Long, Monsanto board of directors, 2002-2007; and Gilbert Omenn, Amgen director, 1987 present. Actually, Omenn has a list of corporate ties as long as your arm; for example, he also serves on the board of industrial-chemical concern Rohm and Haas.
By all means, listen to the corporate perspective: If the world is to feed itself, Monsanto must operate within a lax regulatory framework -- while also relying on draconian intellectual-property protection. Or, to stay healthy, the public needs a steady supply of novel, rapidly FDA-approved pharmaceuticals from the likes of Amgen.
Fine. But where are the ecologists? Where are the scientists don't see the world as a discrete, independent set of problems ready to be solved by corporate-led science? Where are the scientists who believe in the precautionary principle?
I realize that in the academy, government science funding has withered and corporate cash has filled the vacuum. At this point, if you want to study science, you almost have to play ball. In a sense, "science" really does mean "corporate science."
But Obama could still do better. I suggest he scroll through the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists to look for advisors who can balance the Monsanto/Amgen types.
“Historic consensus” at G8 on climate change, says Obama
No, Jeff, there’s not a debate about the science of climate change
U.S.-Russia climate and energy efficiency cooperation: A neglected challenge
Comments
View as Flat
Duggles Posted 2:30 am
19 Sep 2008
Yes, but...
Wouldn't that just give the Republican competition an opportunity to say that he's being influenced by tree-hugging hippies?
Remember: An accusation doesn't have to be true, it just has to have some believability. That's politics.
Permalink
randino Posted 3:05 am
19 Sep 2008
First, we elect Obama.
Then we start to beat him up if he pisses us off. Our work will not end on election day. It will just be starting. When we elect a president, even if we suport him, we elect someone who we may have to oppose. That's life in the big city.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 3:58 am
19 Sep 2008
To be fair
Just because you're corporate doesn't mean you're a bad scientist. I get the concern, but let's not paint with too broad a brush.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:59 am
19 Sep 2008
precautionary principle
I have a somewhat gut reaction to people invoking the precautionary principle, no offense intended to anyone that does. I think in most situations it's a bunch of BS.
Yes, there are clear situations where an action carries risks that are overbearing. For example, outright atmospheric mercury release, or allowing sewage to enter drinking water supplies. These actions/events are clearly deserving of the invocation of the precautionary principle.
There are situations where risk is minimal, for example, I leave the house today to take a walk. In principle, barring any catastrophic event, including other's mistakes, this action should not have any important risks.
There are events in between that have a much stronger risk, but the risk may not be overbearing. This is the area, where precautionary principle starts to wither. Where do we draw the line in terms of how far do we take the principle? There are inherent risks in nearly every decision made by humans, including the possibility of striking an endangered animal in a car, etc. These risks can be relatively high or relatively low, but in all cases they exist. Even the minimal risk example above contains a certain amount of risk. This is where cost-benefit analysis typically comes in to assess the cost of taking action versus the cost of not taking action.
However, I find that typically the same group of people that asks for the precautionary principle to be considered ask for cost-benefit analysis to not take place. At that point, it becomes a self-serving request for the first, in essence a means to stop an action from happening based on the set of beliefs that are inherent to that person.
I believe that this becomes the crux of my argument. Any one who asks for the precautionary principle should immediately ask for cost-benefit analysis by an independent unbiased third-party.
My post was not intended as an argument against the above topic, but rather as a concern for the use of 'precautionary principle' that I typically see.
End transmission.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:30 am
19 Sep 2008
I'm with Randy. Saving my criticisms for later
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 5:42 am
19 Sep 2008
'Corporate science' is not science.........
It appears to me that there is a colossal, manmade corporate world on one hand and the Creation on the other. Science makes it possible for us to gain knowledge of the Creation.
The corporate world and science are different. They need not be conflated.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
American4Science Posted 6:10 am
19 Sep 2008
Only YOU can be a Science Advisor
It is easy to judge people by who they choose to have as advisors. In fact, I'd say you certainly should judge them, in some capacity, based on that decision. But I also think that we have a responsibility to put ourselves out there and perhaps "corporate scientists" are just more willing to do that.
Now we all can't be advising the presidential candidates at once, but who has volunteered to advise their local city council or state representatives? Who among us is going to step up and say, "I am a scientist and I want to help your campaign by serving as an advisor or consultant on science policy during this election cycle and potentially during your term in office"?
The truth is, scientists from all backgrounds - corporate, independent research institutions, academia, etc. - need to get out there and make themselves players in the process, scientific advisory committees will continue to be made up of the people who show up.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:54 am
20 Sep 2008
Only socialist science
is real science according to you dolts.
Permalink