Breakthrough Web Design - 641-201-1459 - Build Your Online Presence
News & Entertainment for Mason City, Clear Lake & the North Iowa Region
Expert Web Design
for your business

CALL 641-201-1459
• Founded 2010

Book examines America’s turn from science, warns of danger for democracy


This news story was published on December 27, 2011.
Advertise on NIT Subscribe to NIT

By Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers –

WASHINGTON — Americans have trouble dealing with science, and it’s especially obvious is in presidential campaigns, says Shawn Lawrence Otto, who tried, with limited success, to get the candidates to debate scientific questions in the 2008 presidential election.

Otto is the author of a new book, “Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America,” which opens with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government.”

And if the people and their leaders aren’t well informed and don’t use scientific information to solve modern problems, Otto suggests, the United States could soon skid into decline.

“Without the mooring provided by the well-informed opinion of the people, governments may become paralyzed or, worse, corrupted by powerful interests seeking to oppress and enslave,” he writes.

Today, he adds, Congress seems paralyzed and “ideology and rhetoric increasingly guide policy discussion, often bearing little relationship to factual reality.”

In 2008, Otto and a group of other writers tried to organize a presidential debate on science issues. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain was interested. In the end, the two candidates agreed to respond to 14 questions in writing, and Otto’s group posted them on its website.

Otto said the group plans to try for another science debate in 2012.

Reporters play a role in whether science is discussed in campaigns. A League of Conservation Voters analysis in early 2008 found that prime-time TV journalists asked 2,975 questions in 171 interviews. Only six questions were about climate change, “and the same could be said of any one of several major policy topics surrounding science,” Otto writes in the book.

Today’s policymakers “are increasingly unwilling to pursue many of the remedies science presents,” he argues. They “take one of two routes: Deny the science, or pretend the problems don’t exist.”

Otto said he wasn’t looking for simple answers in the book.

“I don’t blame corporations because they are stuck in a system we have created and they can’t solve it all themselves,” he said in an interview. “I don’t blame the Republican Party for going anti-science because there are a lot of factors that led to that socially, and I don’t think it’s a decision of Republican Party leadership to one day say, ‘Oh, we’re not going to accept science anymore.’ And it’s not just because evangelicals got involved in politics. There’s a lot of complex reasons.”

Here are some questions for Otto, and his answers:

Q: Are Americans rejecting science?

A: I think it’s a myth Americans aren’t interested. It’s a myth they don’t like science and scientists … But there’s some partisan political affiliation going on, and sometimes science tells them they don’t want to hear and they don’t like to deal with. Climate change is a great example, because the problem is so enormous and the implications mean restructuring our economy and our energy supply system.

Science does two things that we don’t love. It does lots of things that we do love, but the two things we don’t love are: Whenever we extend our knowledge, we have to parse that new knowledge morally and ethically . . . . The other thing is that it either confirms or vexes somebody’s vested interested.

Q: Will we hear about science issues in the 2012 campaign?

A: I think science is going to remain a charged issue . .. Science is such a major part of everything, but particularly our unsolved challenges.

On climate change, Republican presidential candidates generally say they don’t think the science is settled, even though the nation’s scientific organizations have reported a consensus view that the Earth is warming mostly as a result of pollution from fossil fuel combustion.

Q: What makes dealing with climate change so difficult?

Nobody wants to feel bad about the future. Everybody wants to be hopeful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 characters available