Politically Neutral

“It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.” - Admiral Mike Mullen, all-hands letter to military personnel.

That quote appeared in an article recently that gave me pause for thought. Most likely, I got caught up in the parallel to science, which should also be, though perhaps often is not, a politically-neutral enterprise.

It is especially disheartening to me to see scientists engage in public-forum discussions of political candidates. Political ideals are one thing, but the dynamics of a specific campaign or the actions of a specific candidate is quite another, especially when the aim of that discussion is to influence the outcome to reflect your own preference. If you feel 'morally obligated' to discuss a specific candidate, do not use your status as a 'scientist' to bolster the argument, even if it is only implicitly by discussing it in your 'science' blog.

1) Scientists are (hopefully) trained to entertain opposing perspectives. Politics is not a situation where the 'evidence' clearly favors one candidate/party over another, therefore you are arguing from preference, beliefs, and ideology rather than evidence. Join the ranks of everyone else.

2) The argument that scientists are somehow more 'enlightened' or intelligent than the average person and therefore have an obligation to influence the debate is crap. Scientists are just as much a product of their past experience and exposure as everyone else. There are conservative scientists and liberal scientists. Being a 'scientist' doesn't give you superior morality either, so don't presume that the specific contents of your education make you a better judge of right or wrong-ness of any specific situation. Argue your position on equal footing with everyone else, and win by the strength of your argument rather than by claiming status as a 'scientist', 'academic', or 'intellectual'. (Yeah, unfortunately people do give more weight to arguments made by those with certain status. That doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it. Unless, of course, you crave that kind of power...)

3) Discussing people rather than ideas is always a step down from the most productive level of discourse. We all engage in it from time to time, of course, but we should all hope to aspire to something better. Especially when representing 'science' to the outside world.

4) I don't presume that my endorsement of a specific candidate would actually help their candidacy. If I express support for a specific candidate, people associate my actions with that candidate. And we know how people feel about being associated with my actions. ;) Personally, I'd like to see more people refrain from endorsing candidates unless they have been specifically asked to do so by the candidate.

That's it for this edition of the soapbox. I think I'll get back to that 'summer vacation' plan I had. ;)