Kevin Margeson
HSD 501 – Science and Democracy, Dr. Miller
Weekly Reading Brief 6 – Feb 25, 2011
Science and Representation
Do we elect representatives to express their will or the will of their constituents? In the practice of American democracy and the execution of our civic discourse I often hear people advocate mutually exclusive points of view on this, The new catch phrase “Elections have consequences.” has been bandied about by the right, who also vehemently oppose most of the positions espoused by the current administration. This is certainly not limited to the right, but it is an example of the sometimes contradictory view of how we want our representatives to express our desires. We have discussed how American government is based on the idea that an informed public will generally make the right decision given accurate information. (and after exhausting all other options, as Churchill pointed out.)
The representatives that make decisions on the behalf of the population often have to deal with technical issues filtered through the lens of the media, which informs the general public. The media has adopted much of the adversarial style of debate of our public forum giving equal time to opposing points of view. But I have to ask is this the best way of debating public issues. Do we need give equal time to minority opinions in scientific debates? Do we need to give credence to those who adopt positions so far out of the mainstream of scientific opinion that they border on the irrational? Would Galileo have passed that test? Or Newton? Or Curie? The public and official positions were against them as well and their viewpoints eventually made the forefront of scientific knowledge.
In today’s world of media coverage, the perception of policy related scientific issues like global warming, healthcare issues such as breast cancer screening, and even energy exploration all get media spin based on public outrage, corporate image making, and political party maneuvering.
This weekend I happened to be watching Gasland on HBO, a documentary on natural gas exploration and the devastation it has caused in rural areas and the potential dangers and impacts or fracture gas exploration. Not too long after that film, I was watching This Week from ABC News, which always has a big corporate image type of sponsor, and sure enough the American Petroleum Institute had several public information announcements wildly expressing the public benefit of the natural gas industry. So the public is receiving vastly varied opinions on most technical and scientific issues from credible sources with official sounding names. Officials will be receiving position advice from varying interest groups and constituents with passionate views informed by these divergent opinions. Who are they to believe? And should they disclose the source of that decision? I believe they should be required to cite specific sources to ensure disclosure, but those sources may be cloaked with media spin as much as their messages.
Parallel to the comments you made about the phrase "elections have consequence," there also seems to be the mantra of "the mandate." It operates on the same assumption that because they won an election, a representative is allowed to act their will. Yet, it goes one step further in assuming that because they were elected, the entire American populace has given the representative a mandate to act in the way they campaigned on. It forgets there was a group of people who not only didn't vote but voted against them!
ReplyDeleteIn regards citing sources of information, an issues arises when the representative needs to cite their sources but a PAC or interest groups aren't under the same laws. I "love" watching all those commercials that are made be some nice sounded, patriotic group. Who the heck are these people and what are they hiding behind their name? Not only do representatives, media, and science need to be transparent, the funding groups need to be transparent.
The role of media in science is an interesting one. I enjoyed your post!