Scientists as Interest Group

The national media, based in New York and Washington, D. C., is largely focused on politics. It is, therefore, pretty good at pointing out biases and contradictions in the stands of politicians and groups pushing policies in line with narrow agendas. One group, however, tends to escape skeptical looks from the national press. That group, broadly, is scientists.

The mainstream political press seems to give scientists a benefit-of=a-doubt when one or more takes a public stand on a political issue; the press seems to assume scientists making political judgments are as fair-minded, thorough, and objective as they ideally are when making scientific judgments. First, as the science press knows, scientists are neither Vulcans nor computers; the judgment of a scientist can be colored by his or her personal beliefs and agendas. Second, correct policy options are no more obvious in areas scientists might be interested in than they are in relation to tax policy, welfare programs, or military affairs. A person can have exemplary judgment in a scientific field, and god awful judgment in politics.

Take the debate pitting human spaceflight against unmanned missions, for example. Many physicists and planetary scientists argue thar human flights are wastes of resources. More science could be done more cheaply, they argue, with robotic crafts. Fair enough. Implicit in that argument, however, is the view that the only reason to go into space at all is to do science. Put another way, they are saying the space program should exist solely to advance their work. The right or wrong of that position aside, that kind of view belongs to a special interest group trying to influence the spending of federal funds.

Generally, the press would be sensitive to such attempts to funnel taxpayers' money, but space scientists especially tend to go largely unchallenged. Why? Maybe because most journalists in positions of authority are basically political reporters who see scientists, particularly those engaged in space exploration, as disinterested occupants of ivory towers. Or perhaps the flip side is closer to the truth. Perhaps reporters see scientists as kindred spirits. Both groups, after all, base their claims to the public's attention on being objective purveyors of facts. If scientists turn out to be something less than that when they step into the public arena, well, then....

The above argument can be overdone. Big Science doesn't always get its way, for example, which could suggest the press doesn't simply accept every position establishment scientists take. The real question, though, is whether the mainstream press delves deeply enough into issues related to science.