Sun 1 Oct 2006
Oh oh oh, this is exciting news!
Several prominent scientists said yesterday that they had formed an organization dedicated to electing politicians “who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.”
Organizers of the group, Scientists and Engineers for America, said it would be nonpartisan, but in interviews several said Bush administration science policies had led them to act.
No surprise there since they seemed to kick off the War on Science even before the War on Terror. Still, it’s nice that the organization will endeavor as much as possible to be a nonpartisan advocacy group that promotes scientific and technical integrity in public policy decisions, because God knows we need it.
I hope SEFORA takes off and becomes something useful, because once I wrap up my tenure as an officer with Young Democrats next month, I’ll be looking for other (additional) outlets for civic discourse and action. And if I can represent such extracurricular activities on my CV without labeling my way right out of some job opportunties that are particularly averse to partisan affiliations, that’ll be just gravy. A couple weeks ago, I spoke with a fellow from the RAND corporation who passed through Tech on his recruiting tour, and I asked him if such experience would rule me out of employment at a think tank that stressed its objectivity and independence. It’s not every scientist or engineer who spends a lot of time worrying about press releases, newsletters, and messaging/branding in general, so considering I want to do more writing than calculating in my future as an engineer, it’d be a shame to have to leave that part of my past out altogether. Fortunately, he said that it wouldn’t be a problem at all as long as they can glean from the interviews that I can leave ideology at the office door and let the technical facts in my research speak for themselves.
Well, considering how many times I go toe-to-toe with some passionate members of the Democratic Party when I advocate what look like downright conservative policies based on scientific and technological principles (the only time I heard directly from the DPG is after I lambasted the Lt. Governor’s campaign proposal to lift the gas tax for its totally counter-productive environmental impact), I’m not too worried about my objectivity. I may be a Democrat by affiliation, but I’m an engineer to the bone (which is quite often a bad thing). I want to use my skills to make this country better, and I think I can best do that by presenting and advocating what I believe to be scientifically sound policies; this means arguing with the left wing of the Democratic party about funding things like nuclear research just as often as it means arguing with the right about pretty much everything else. It’s not my fault that I agree on sci-tech matters more often with one party because the other’s approach to such matters tends toward the la-la-la-I-don’t-hear-you-la-la-la-save-me-Jesus-la-la-la. (At least in the life sciences category. In homeland security it’s more like la-la-la-you-love-terr’ists-la-la-la-be-very-afraid-la-la-la-no-gels-or-liquids-la-la-la-what’s-a-pipeline-la-la-la.)
But hey, if there’s a new PAC available for me to bash any anti-science person’s head around regardless of party, then sign me up! And sign you up, too: if you’re a geek like me, consider checking in on their site, ’cause they have this member challenge thing going on and I’m just a sucker for a challenge.
I mean, look at my dating life.
