if Nature could vote
The journal Nature endorsed Barack Obama for president. When a friend told me this and sent me the link, my first reaction was, complete with caps, "God all these people are so histrionic. THE WORLD WILL NOT END IF MCCAIN WINS THE ELECTION." But then I read the endorsement (sorry, I think it might be gated) and I was at least pleased that they kept a very measured tone. Some choice bits:
"There is no open-and-shut case for preferring one man or the other on the basis of their views on these matters. This is as it should be: for science to be a narrow sectional interest bundled up in a single party would be a terrible thing. Both sides recognize science's inspirational value and ability to help achieve national and global goals. That is common ground to be prized, and a scientific journal's discussion of these matters might be expected to stop right there."
"But science is bound by, and committed to, a set of normative values - values that have application to political questions. Placing a disinterested view of the world as it is ahead of our views of how it should be; recognizing that ideas should be tested in as systematic a way as possible; appreciating that there are experts whose views and criticisms need to be taken seriously: these are all attributes of good science that can be usefully applied when making decisions about the world of which science is but a part. Writ larger, the core values of science are those of open debate within a free society that have come down to us from the Enlightenment in many forms, not the least of which is the constitution of the United States. The core values of science are those of open debate within a free society that have come down to us from the Enlightenment. On a range of topics, science included, Obama has surrounded himself with a wider and more able cadre of advisers than McCain."
I still find it a little unsettling that a scientific journal has endorsed a candidate for political office. And I think Nature has somewhat sullied itself in so doing.
On the other hand, I suppose a scientific publication might have halfway legitimate reasons for such a political action. I don't really know anything about the publishers of Nature, but its American analog, Science, is published by the American Association for Advancement of Science, which is a bona fide lobbying group. Nevertheless, an alternative medium would have been more appropriate.
"There is no open-and-shut case for preferring one man or the other on the basis of their views on these matters. This is as it should be: for science to be a narrow sectional interest bundled up in a single party would be a terrible thing. Both sides recognize science's inspirational value and ability to help achieve national and global goals. That is common ground to be prized, and a scientific journal's discussion of these matters might be expected to stop right there."
"But science is bound by, and committed to, a set of normative values - values that have application to political questions. Placing a disinterested view of the world as it is ahead of our views of how it should be; recognizing that ideas should be tested in as systematic a way as possible; appreciating that there are experts whose views and criticisms need to be taken seriously: these are all attributes of good science that can be usefully applied when making decisions about the world of which science is but a part. Writ larger, the core values of science are those of open debate within a free society that have come down to us from the Enlightenment in many forms, not the least of which is the constitution of the United States. The core values of science are those of open debate within a free society that have come down to us from the Enlightenment. On a range of topics, science included, Obama has surrounded himself with a wider and more able cadre of advisers than McCain."
I still find it a little unsettling that a scientific journal has endorsed a candidate for political office. And I think Nature has somewhat sullied itself in so doing.
On the other hand, I suppose a scientific publication might have halfway legitimate reasons for such a political action. I don't really know anything about the publishers of Nature, but its American analog, Science, is published by the American Association for Advancement of Science, which is a bona fide lobbying group. Nevertheless, an alternative medium would have been more appropriate.