• Skip to Content
  • Skip to Sidebar
IU

Indiana University Bloomington Indiana University Bloomington IU Bloomington

Menu

ScIUConversations in Science at Indiana University

  • Home
  • Home
  • About ScIU
  • Write with Us!
  • Contact ScIU
  • The Writers and Editors of ScIU
  • ScIU in the Classroom
  • Annual Science Communication Symposium
  • Search

Earth Day 2018: Reclaiming climate science

Posted on April 24, 2018 by Chris ChoGlueck

ScIU Archival Post bannerThis post is from ScIU’s archives. It was originally published for Earth Day 2017 and has been lightly edited to reflect current events. 

When scientists communicate with the public about politics, they often frame the issue as “science vs. politics.”  For instance, some scientists champion speaking truth to power, while others suggest that they stay out of the political fray altogether.  Both arguments assume that science and politics are independent and mutually exclusive.  Furthermore, they presuppose that science could and should remain politically neutral.  I’d like to discuss why this framing is problematic and how we might instead understand the political role of science.  Since Earth Day was this past Sunday, let’s focus on climate science in the public discourse.

This same science-vs.-politics framing has arisen in the discussion of the past actions of the Trump administration.  Many scientists and science supporters consider the White House to have an “anti-science agenda,” especially regarding environmental science and climate change.  This agenda included a temporary suspension of all Environmental Protection Agency grants, removal of the White House’s climate change webpage, and restriction of public communications for agencies such as the National Park Service.  In response, many scientists condemned the White House’s actions as politics interfering with sound science.  Following the Women’s March on Washington, they focused their energy toward a public demonstration, now officially “the March for Science,” which first occurred on Earth Day (April 22) 2017, drawing hundreds of thousands of participants. 

Science activists wearing white lab coats hold signs such as “Scientists serving the common good,” “Stand up for science,” and “Scientists speaking truth to power.” They are gathered at a rally in Boston to “Stand Up for Science.” Many of the rally participants were also attendees at the AAAS annual conference during the same afternoon.
Coinciding with the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), science activists rally to “Stand Up for Science” in Boston, February 2017. Marches and rallies for science are becoming an increasingly common form of political activism (Credit: Sarah McQuate at Sciencemag.org).

Critics of the march have bemoaned its politicizing effect on science.  Coastal geologist Robert Young has argued that taking to the streets in white lab coats will simply exacerbate the problem:  “A march by scientists, while well intentioned, will serve only to trivialize and politicize the science we care so much about, turn scientists into another group caught up in the culture wars and further drive the wedge between scientists and a certain segment of the American electorate.”  Young’s concern, however, ignores the sociological reality today that climate science is perceived as a partisan issue, that is, a liberal agenda or an elitist ruse.  Rather than seeking to keep science clean from “political dirt,” we need to understand how science is political and rethink how it ought to be political.

The sociological problem in the U.S. is the widespread perception that environmental science is partisan politics.  Americans overwhelmingly praise science, but their trust in the climate science community correlates with party lines:  while 69% of Americans in 2016 believed reports of the previous year’s record-high temperatures, only 27% of Republicans attributed the rise to human actions, compared with 72% of Democrats.  All of this is despite the scientific consensus that humans have caused the changes we are experiencing.  As social psychologist Dan Kahan has said, “Positions on climate change have come to signify the kind of person one is.”  That is, climate science in the public discussion has been co-opted into the “culture wars” that pit conservatives against liberals, further polarizing American society and debilitating our democratic system.

A globe, shaped like a money bag and plastered with a dollar sign, drips away into nothing.
While devastating for the planet and its inhabitants, climate change is fueled primarily by the profitable combustion of fossil fuels (Artist: Stephanie McMillan).

Thus, climate science is already politicized–but primarily in partisan terms.  However, the cause of this partisan effect is not party ideology.  Rather, the history of climate science tells us that its politicization is the result of private industrial interests.  Just like the tobacco companies founded scientific-looking institutes to cast doubt on the health risks associated with smoking, so too has the oil industry challenged climate science by funding think tank opposition.  In the late 1980s, the George C. Marshall Institute released a report that the warming trend was due to the sun.  While flatly misrepresenting scientific reports, it influenced President Bush’s decision to oppose a carbon tax and fossil-fuel restrictions.  Since then, corporations such as ExxonMobil have spent millions of dollars on think tanks like the Marshall Institute to oppose the veracity of climate science.

Because of the economic stakes of climate science, it is unable to be politically neutral.  Documenting the warming effects of greenhouse gases challenges buisness-as-usual.  So in some sense, climate scientists do speak truth to power, but only because of the political power of science.  This requires us to rethink the political role of science, to go beyond an impossible neutrality.  Much of public discourse conceptualizes the relation of science and politics as merely partisan.  But this is not the only way to be political.  The fact that science has been cast in partisan terms, moreover, is the result of corporate interests.  Thus, we need an alternative vision for the political role of science.

A picture of Earth from space against a blue backdrop. The continent of Africa is obscrubed by a large cloud formation in the Anarctic.
The Earth Day flag, based on NASA’s famous “Blue Marble” shot, depicts the fagility and beauty of our planet.

One of the core principles of the March for Science is that science serves the common good rather than special interests.  This is both a political and a scientific ideal.  Rather than pushing for the autonomy of science, we as scientists and supporters of science could advocate for the use of science toward democratic ends.  This compels us to create a forum for science and politics to interface rather than compete.  It requires exposing the corporate interference in these public debates.  It entails the participation of those across the political spectrum, working together to show that science is not a liberal agenda or a tool of the elite.  Instead, science is and ought to be a tool for the common good.

The public discussion of climate science has been co-opted by corporate interests, seeking to obscure the power that climate science could have for everyone.  In the spirit of Earth Day, I suggest we take a more global perspective. Let’s oppose the framing of science-vs.-politics and work to reclaim science for the people.

Edited by Ed Basom and Lana Ruck

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related

Filed under: Current EventsTagged climate change, climate science, public policy, science policy

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Additional Content

Search ScIU

Categories

Tag cloud

#Education #scicomm animal behavior anthropology archaeology astronomy astrophysics Biology biotechnology Black History Month brain cannabinoids cannabis Chemistry climate change conservation coronavirus COVID–19 Diversity in Science diversity in STEM Ecology environment evolution geology history and philosophy of science infectious disease Interdisciplinary Interview Mental Health methods microbiology neuroscience outreach physics Plants primates psychology Research science communication science education Science Outreach science policy Statistics STEM women in STEM

Subscribe

Receive a weekly email with our new content! We will not share or use your information for any other purposes, and you may opt out at any time.

Please, insert a valid email.

Thank you, your email will be added to the mailing list once you click on the link in the confirmation email.

Spam protection has stopped this request. Please contact site owner for help.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Current Contributors

  • Log in
  • SPLAT
  • ScIU Guides

Indiana University

Copyright © 2022 The Trustees of Indiana University | Privacy Notice | Accessibility Help

  • Home
  • About ScIU
  • Write with Us!
  • Contact ScIU
  • The Writers and Editors of ScIU
  • ScIU in the Classroom
  • Annual Science Communication Symposium
College of Arts + Sciences

Are you a graduate student at IUB? Would you like to write for ScIU? Email sciucomm@iu.edu


Subscribe

Subscribe By Email

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

 

Loading Comments...