TED Conversations

  • Solidus Sharp
  • Spokane Valley
  • United States Minor Outlying Islands

This conversation is closed.

Unscientific policymakers should not have say in scientific concerns?

Science illiteracy in politics because of religious ideology and people who where raised unscientific. Is this a threat and what are the solutions to improve are democracy ?

Share:
  • thumb
    Apr 2 2013: That would be anti-democratic. How do you imagine we implement it?

    Look at Federal agencies in the US such as the FDA. The FDA wields delegated executive power and is controlled by industry players (Monsanto lawyers and scientists). You might say that we want industry players making decisions for the industry, as they know it best. But there's a bias that comes with that, as these players remain loyal to their companies in the industry. The outcome is that a lot of science is ignored! Things that are outright banned in Europe go unregulated here, because they're Monsanto products. The FDA is run by a Monsanto lawyer, Michael Taylor.

    We might want only industry leaders making decisions for the scientific community. The reality is that these people have businesses in the industry that could really prosper by manipulating government regulations. That geologist works for BP, that chemist for Pfizer. We essentially cut out every unbiased voice and outside perspective by letting the industry regulate itself.

    What do you suggest, that we give Congress a science quiz and decide who gets to vote on what? Thank God we have a Constituion.
  • thumb
    Mar 22 2013: What would our world look like if all things scientific were handled exclusively by scientists with sovereign, unregulated control over financing, prioritization of workload, ethics, accountability, and implementation of advancements? I think it would be a trainwreck, an unmitigated disaster. Policymakers (elected representatives of The People) should have a say in scientific concerns just as they should in all taxpayer-funded activity.
  • Apr 4 2013: If you care about are conversation please give real thought to running for public office in you own district money and effort are your concern talk to us we will use are foward thinking and create a solution Smart vs Dumb . im not telling you how to live or to make politics a life long career this is are solution to get bad policy and bad people out of are government system. No point to ambitions if you dont try to achieve them . Be well all thanks for you comments and insights .
  • Apr 2 2013: Science denail is a threat and people who do not understand this fact should not comment cause you dont really care about the issue . If you do what are your solutions making online noise is not constuctive to the topic.
  • Mar 31 2013: HI.
    Please list here the names of those politicians who have actually solved problems by the decisions
    they make and the policies they create and implement.
    Then maybe I can give an answer.
    Also, list those corporate CEO's who make decisions that don't pollute the environment and who also
    are ethical when it comes to disposing of waste no matter what kind of waste it is.
    Add to that list those corporate decision makers who choose not to use humans as guinea pigs for their latest drugs that they so desperately want to make available for the huge profits they see dancing before their eyes. In other words, those who have not skirted the laws requiring testing and proof of test results.
    Also list, those leaders, politicians and CEO's, along with those from the medical insurances, who have not lied to the public, benefited monetarily or otherwise from their lies, and who have made decisions according to what will really work to solve, resolve and maintain health, without growing overrides, new legislation and other instances of malfeasance, that they are constantly denying while they fight off investigations, and when found guilty get a slap on the wrist, or is it a slap on us/US?
    I have to agree with you. How we make decisions is of utmost importance. Not who makes them and why they make them.
    They make them for profit, not for fixing, solving or resolving.
    Things don't................"get done"..................because of money.
    Things...................."don't get done"..............because of money.
  • Mar 23 2013: Policymakers make decisions on many things relevant to science. Once of these concerns is how much public funding should go towards science. Another is deciding what aspects of science are likely to provide payback for those paying the bills. Scientific organizations tend to police themselves via peer review, skepticism, and gradual group adherence to concepts worthy of carrying into the future. Deciding how to prioritize science advancement relative to other aspects of public welfare requires some knowledge of science just to be capable of understanding the relevance. It is up to scientists to communicate this relevance effectively and with vigor that matches the importance of the discovery or potential discovery.

    That being said, policy makers, like scientists, have opinions about religion, politics, ethics, values, and acceptable behavior that they are free to communicate to anyone willing to listen. My problem comes when politicians use their positions and influence to advance their personal beliefs about religion, science or similar fields as something other than opinion. We elect them to build consensus, find equitable compromises, and lead us to peace and prosperity.

    The skill they must have relative to science is to be capable of understanding concepts put forward, to put people in place that have the right balance of vision and realism to optimize scientific advancement, and to be sensitive to the needs of their constituents. The power of influence they wield beyond these activities, either in office or out of office, is a gratuitous side effect of their popularity. We as citizens and decision makers need to surgically remove their popularity and charisma from that facts of whatever scientific principles they put forward and hold them to the same level of accountability we hold real scientists to when it comes to proving their hypothesis with technical evidence.

    Right or wrong, let the facts speak the truth.
  • thumb
    Mar 22 2013: We need a fair cross-section of society, scientists, ministers, & everyone. Scientists tend to be sharply focused, we need a bigger consensus before investing in another LHC; maybe hospitals are more important. We get who we vote for!

    :-)
  • thumb
    Mar 22 2013: Like those on the US Congress' science committees who think that God has a way to prevent rape victims from getting pregnant? What idiots allow idiots like that from getting such important committee assignments? OUR idiots.

    I'd like it in the committees, but I wouldn't like it if my elected representative was not allowed to vote on an issue that is of vital importance to me. I'd like it even more if Congress were to keep its nose out of those areas that the Constitution says it shouldn't be meddling in. That would improve our lives a lot.
  • Mar 22 2013: Science and democracy- Is there a relationship here? One would hopre that people listen to scientists, but in a democracy and a free country that is often not required.