In this book leading scientists share their experiences and observations of developing and testing hypotheses, offering insights on the dangers of manipulating science for political gain. It describes how politicization--whether by misapplication, overextension, or outright manipulation of the scientific record to advance particular policy agendas--imposes expenditures of money, missed opportunities, and burdens on the economy.

In this book leading scientists share their experiences and observations of developing and testing hypotheses, offering insights on the dangers of manipulating science for political gain. It describes how politicization--whether by misapplication, overextension, or outright manipulation of the scientific record to advance particular policy agendas--imposes expenditures of money, missed opportunities, and burdens on the economy.

In this monograph Janet A. Kourany argues for a philosophy of science more socially engaged and socially responsible than the philosophy of science we have now. The central questions feminist scientists, philosophers, and historians have been raising about science during the last three decades form Kourany's point of departure and her response to these questions builds on their insights. This way of approaching science differs from mainstream philosophy of science in two crucial respects: it locates science within its wider societal context rather than treating science as if it existed in a social, political, and economic vacuum; and it points the way to a more comprehensive understanding of scientific rationality, one that integrates the ethical with the epistemic. Kourany develops her particular response, dubbed by her the ideal of socially responsible science, beyond the gender-related questions and contexts that form its origins and she defends it against a variety of challenges, epistemological, historical, sociological, economic, and political. She ends by displaying the important new directions philosophy of science can take and the impressive new roles philosophers of science can fill with the approach to science she offers.

Science has never been more crucial to deciding the political issues facing the country. Yet science and scientists have less influence with the federal government than at any time since the Eisenhower administration. In the White House and Congress today, findings are reported in a politicized manner; spun or distorted to fit the speaker's agenda; or, when they're too inconvenient, ignored entirely. On a broad array of issues-stem cell research, climate change, missile defense, abstinence education, product safety, environmental regulation, and many others-the Bush administration's positions fly in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. Federal science agencies, once fiercely independent under both Republican and Democratic presidents, are increasingly staffed by political appointees and fringe theorists who know industry lobbyists and evangelical activists far better than they know the science. This is not unique to the Bush administration, but it is largely a Republican phenomenon, born of a conservative dislike of environmental, health, and safety regulation, and at the extremes, of evolution and legalized abortion. In The Republican War on Science , Chris Mooney ties together the disparate strands of the attack on science into a compelling and frightening account of our government's increasing unwillingness to distinguish between legitimate research and ideologically driven pseudoscience.

The politicalization of research findings has become prevalent over the past two decades. Politics often prevents the implementation of policy supported by irrefutable science. Most of us understand something about how this is happening with stem cell research, but Cornell's Madelon Finkel delves deep into the subject to make the issues clear, also revealing how ideology and politics are distorting, diminishing and destroying scientific research results regarding topics from needle exchange, HIV/AIDS prevention and medical marijuana to antiobiotic use with animals later marketed for human consumption. When ideology—whether it is the ideology of scientists and clinicians or of politicians—distorts scientific findings and public health judgment, public welfare is endangered, potentially affecting every person in our nation. Finkel also discusses how research is funded and how ideology has influenced that process. Numerous examples are given to illustrate the consequences of co-opting the scientific integrity of a program in this way.

These are stories of the political corruption of science. Politicians work to forge a consensus, they use persuasion, intimidation, and avoid or suppress debate. Debating an issue leads to education, it shows the question is more complex than it appears, it makes the public consider all sides. Education leads to caution, not action. The politician wants a decision, he wants action, so no debate. Once the consensus is formed, the public votes, laws are passed, regulations issued, the minority concedes, and conflict is avoided. Science is not a belief. It exists to challenge the consensus view. It is how one person can show the overwhelming majority is mistaken. Scientists do not vote, they debate. They gather facts, make observations, and analyze the data and try to show the consensus opinion is wrong. Politicians and scientists don’t mix. They are like fire and water, opposites. But, what about when no one trusts the politician and he must have a scientist for back up? What happens when the government becomes the sole source of research money? We address the attempt by politicians to control scientific research and research outcomes. They do this by selectively funding projects that look for potential disasters, ideally global disasters. People love disaster stories, journalists love disaster stories, scientists love to be quoted in newspapers and on television. If you frighten people enough, they will give up their rights for security, increasing government power. So, it is not surprising that as government has taken over funding scientific research, scientists have migrated from research that helps people, to researching possible catastrophes, no matter how remote the possibility. Science has devolved from improving human lives to developing plots for disaster movies.

The role of science in policymaking has gained unprecedented stature in the United States, raising questions about the place of science and scientific expertise in the democratic process. Some scientists have been given considerable epistemic authority in shaping policy on issues of great moral and cultural significance, and the politicizing of these issues has become highly contentious. Since World War II, most philosophers of science have purported the concept that science should be "value-free." In Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal, Heather E. Douglas argues that such an ideal is neither adequate nor desirable for science. She contends that the moral responsibilities of scientists require the consideration of values even at the heart of science. She lobbies for a new ideal in which values serve an essential function throughout scientific inquiry, but where the role values play is constrained at key points, thus protecting the integrity and objectivity of science. In this vein, Douglas outlines a system for the application of values to guide scientists through points of uncertainty fraught with moral valence.Following a philosophical analysis of the historical background of science advising and the value-free ideal, Douglas defines how values should-and should not-function in science. She discusses the distinctive direct and indirect roles for values in reasoning, and outlines seven senses of objectivity, showing how each can be employed to determine the reliability of scientific claims. Douglas then uses these philosophical insights to clarify the distinction between junk science and sound science to be used in policymaking. In conclusion, she calls for greater openness on the values utilized in policymaking, and more public participation in the policymaking process, by suggesting various models for effective use of both the public and experts in key risk assessments.