Strident science

Amy Sullivan is sometimes none too bright.

It's not that Obama works himself into a rant when he talks about science. He's still calm, cool Barack, after all. But for him, it is almost strident. Sometimes it's his language--today he complained that "We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas." And sometimes it's just his tone--when I listened to the stem-cell speech, his voice sounded uncharacteristically hard, although in reading the text later I noticed a sensitivity to dissenting beliefs that hadn't come through in the delivery.

Maybe the dismissal of science and evidence simply offends Obama's intellectual sensibilities. Or maybe it's one of those rare issues on which his emotions peek through and we're hearing from a man who believes his mother died too early from a disease he hopes will one day be curable.

Whatever the reason, it worries me somewhat because science is one of those areas in which Obama's generally nuanced intellectual approach would be helpful. The anti-science, anti-expert mindset is obviously troubling. But so too is the idea that science is always an unquestioned capital-G good and that anyone who raises questions stands in the way of progress. To cite just one troubling example, this week Michael Isikoff reports a confrontation between FBI interrogator Ali Soufan and a CIA contractor whose harsh methods disturbed him:

"I asked [the contractor] if he'd ever interrogated anyone, and he said no," Soufan says. But that didn't matter, the contractor shot back: "Science is science. This is a behavioral issue." The contractor suggested Soufan was the inexperienced one. "He told me he's a psychologist and he knows how the human mind works."

Now, obviously that's an extreme example. Most advocates of science aren't looking to use it to excuse torture. But neither are most people who worry about the use of embryonic stem cells engaged in "effort[s] to advance predetermined ideological agendas."

It's not that it's an "extreme example," it's a stupid one. If this contractor claims that "behavioral science" is what leads him to abuse (Arab) prisoners, then he isn't talking about "science," he's talking about quasi science at best, racism at worst.

She's also blissfully clueless about whom Obama was referring to in condemning those who undermined scientific integrity to "advance predetermined ideological agendas." He wasn't talking about those morally opposed to research involving embryonic stem cells. He was talking about the Bush administration and their cynical politicizing of science to advance their agenda.