Science and politics have always had a strange relationship. This administration is no different. Way in the beginning, politics was motivated by territorial narcissism, i.e., it’s good to be king, and war was the main thrust that drove science. King David actually practiced an interpersonal alternate energy experiment to keep warm, which apparently was successful. (see Kings 1.1)
The development of new weapons throughout history advanced the technology of the time. The Egyptians had the wheel cutting chariots. Archimedes proposed using solar power to set the marauding fleets on fire — a great idea but it needed ideal conditions to work, i.e., no clouds, stationery boats, etc. DaVinci designed the first tank, machine gun and parachute; all great ideas but too far ahead of his time, material wise. Benjamin Franklin worked on redesigning the aerodynamics of the arrow to make it faster and more directional. The famous letter of Albert Einstein, from the world’s foremost pacifist, in 1939 pleaded for the nuclear bomb to President Roosevelt because the Germans were very close to splitting the atom. From the nuclear bomb to space exploration, in some way these technologies led directly to the technologies today and all were a result of political decisions made years ago. We would not have had advanced materials that led to semiconductors, which led to sensors, solar panels, integrated circuits, jet air transportation, and advances in bio-medicine to name but a few. Could we have accomplished all this without politics either through war or a national agenda? Maybe, but when push comes to shove, we may never have had the motivation without it. Politics, science don’t mix I want to curb my criticism of politics as this is a very sensitive issue where defenses go up immediately. Americans are so polarized that we don’t let anything else in. I am fortunate that I have managed to keep my friends in spite of our political differences. So here I go with my (ever so humble) opinion. We have only one scientist in Congress. His name is Bill Foster, a democrat from Illinois. This is his take on science and politics: Politics is very different from science. In science if you stand up and say something that you know is not true, it is a career-ending move. It used to be that way in politics. It has taken me a while to adjust to politics where, for many who practice it, the question is not, “Is it true? But “What can I convince the voting public is true?” That psychology has bled into politics more than it should. He laments that partisan politics is harmful to science: Science is fact based but partisan politics is not. Here is his take on the most important science based related issue facing congress today: “Aside from evidence-based political debate, I think it is understanding that technology is changing our society, our country and our world at an unprecedented rate. It has already upended labor markets. We should have a dedicated tech committee. I think there are six or seven House committees that claim they are doing information technology. We should consolidate tech and get a core competence in that.” In his statement on the environment “Thanks to decades of federally funded research, we have made great progress towards energy independence. The growth and development of our modern economy during the last century raised our standard of living, but has also led to new challenges and environmental threats. It is our responsibility to develop a comprehensive response to address our dependence on fossil fuels, promote sustainable energy use, and invest in new energy technologies.” My humble opinion • Marginalizing science Most federal funding of science-based programs whether it be the USDA to fix a viral plant problem before it gets out of control, or the FDA to make a quick vaccine so children won’t succumb to pneumonia, or the DOE to keep tabs on our vast nuclear arsenal, or funding research centers like Argonne Laboratories that have the best possibility of designing our next generation of batteries, have been non-partisan. However, with this administration that is not the case. With Rick Perry, the head of DOE, a person who doesn’t know an atom from a can of peaches, there is a trend to marginalize science. This is done by placing people in charge who know MIT only as a glove used in baseball, or who think that Cal Poly is some new breed of parrot. Yes! Climate change is real, and we must prepare for it. We must minimize man’s effect on it as well. We need to keep funding these research centers. These research agendas are not just some backroom science-project. There is a history behind all these “science projects,” such as new materials, new drugs, the vigilance of public safety, and the subsequent economic effect. • The media I was brought up in the era of Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather and Mike Wallace. The Wall Street Journal did not have a lifestyle section. Today’s media has widespread views running the gamut of events and opinions. We are in the time of media doubt. Opinions are like belly buttons and everyone has one. Back in the day, we had only a few sources and they were very reliable and objective. I don’t blame all the media as it is satisfying its audience. We live in a world that is changing at breakneck speed. China is rapidly becoming the world economic power; Africa will be the bread basket; India will be the communications center; Russia has a virtually unlimited supply of natural gas (aka Siberia). Saudi Arabia is doing more in solar energy than the United States. In conclusion We need to keep funding our government science agencies for our safety, security and innovations that will boost our economy. We need a media filter: One that can separate fact from fiction, the relevant from the irrelevant. We need technology-based businesspeople candidates not celebrities or lawyers. Government regulation does have a purpose and should not be ignored or dismissed. Not all government research is wasteful or irrelevant.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorJames Bobreski is a process control engineer who has been in the field of electric power production for 43 years. His “Alternate Energy” column runs monthly. Archives
June 2020
Categories |