Republicans Have a Problem with Science
We should have a problem with them
Republicans, particularly Iowa republicans, seem to have a serious problem with science and the scientific method. Their actions and rhetoric treat science as if it is some monolithic thing to appeal to or a lever you can pull to look good and reasonable in the face of scrutiny. However, like so many concepts and principles that require thought and consideration, they seem to really struggle with science and the scientific method. So often, they substitute a tradition or a belief or cultural icon in for science as a justification for some action or some policy proposal. It is a common refrain, with scientific and secular organizations lining up with data, expertise, and testable hypotheses on one side of an issue, and on the other - the republican side - there are faith-based organizations and Very Concerned Citizens that have little to no scientific data to back them up. These folks tend to view science in the same way they view their favored religious text: as an authoritative source of knowledge that must be appealed to rather than a process that should be applied and worked through.
This way of thinking about science as a magic buzzword is not a recent phenomenon but goes back decades. A cornerstone of conservative ideologies is to coopt the term science and generate “alternative facts” to appeal to folks as a rationale for their positions. Republicans will CLAIM that they like science much in the same way they will CLAIM a great many things, but if you attempt to deconstruct or cite their work, there is often nothing there under the hood. They have gone so far as to create entire alternative collection of institutions with the sole purpose of “teaching a controversy” where no scientific controversy exists. Examples of yesteryear will include scientific evidence that smoking doesn’t cause cancer, leaded gasoline is acceptable, or that burning fossil fuels is neutral to the environment. For each of these examples listed there are a handful of dubious studies and spurious claims in support of the conservative position listed, and a mountain of data showing the opposite.
Also, as one would expect, there are moneyed interests with a strong grip on the party that tend to drive a lot of these decisions.
There are many examples of this, but we don’t have to look much further than the last few legislative sessions here in Iowa, as well as the current one.
Take, for example, the recent proposed changes to Iowa’s education standards. They seek to not only mislead the public on what the committee of science educators signed off on (an entirely different topic on government transparency and oversight), but they also seek to change what it means to teach science. They wish to remove references to human caused climate change despite the mountains of evidence that has been spoken of since the early 1900s.
If republicans were interested in science and accurate information, why would you discount the evidence here? Republicans also wish to remove language that is the cornerstone of modern biology – biological evolution – because it threatens certain world views. This is not being careful and accurate with information; it is an intentional misrepresentation of scientific data. They seek to hamstring future generations by leaving them less prepared and capable of not only understanding the world around them but leaving them less able to compete in a global marketplace for jobs and expertise. Why would employers and leaders want a population that doesn’t understand basic biology for the next cancer research breakthrough or energy development?
Another example is the presentation of bills that would mandate a computer-generated video showing specifically inaccurate development markers and change language in human development courses throughout Iowa schools. Under the guise of “teaching science” the bill, and others like it, explicitly exempt the curriculum from scrutiny by actual scientific organizations such as American college of gynecological, pediatric, and obstetric professional groups. If one was interested in science why would you intentionally put language into your bills that cuts out the scientific state and national organizations? Why would you, over the objections of experts with scientific citations, favor the rhetoric of religious and cultural organizations if you cared about science as a method and not a cudgel? Regardless of your views on prenatal care, shouldn’t Iowans be concerned that the ruling political party is intentionally subverting the scientific method to appease their donors?
A final example to use is the very serious issue of water quality in the state of Iowa. This has far-reaching implications on not only the health and well-being of the citizens - with cancer rates rising and our waterways becoming unsafe for recreational and consumption use – but also on the long-term sustainability of our agricultural industry. The scientific community has been ringing alarm bells on the lack of conservation efforts by the state when we see record levels of nitrates in the water here in Iowa as well as further downstream. Instead of leaping to analyze the scientific data, the republican party has done exactly the opposite: They’ve simply stopped allowing measurements and scientific data gathering to be done at all. They shut down conservations offices and place in charge of conservation efforts not scientists, but political operatives and lobbyists. Even though study after study and paper after paper show the damage CAFO’s are doing to our local environment, Iowa republicans are still full steam ahead with little regard to the impact reflected in the scientific community. If there is no data, then there can’t be any bad news according to them, and this is what a republican stand in for “scientific” is, apparently. This has gotten so bad that for the first time in memory the EPA has threatened to step in and do Iowa's job for it to protect Iowan citizens.
Using science and the scientific method are what has made our towns, cities, state, and country a destination for progress and a higher standard of living. When there is a political party that is opposed as a matter of course to the scientific method, this can only lead to worse and worse outcomes. From water quality to nutrition programs, from basic education to improved infrastructure, from planning for tomorrow to planning for the next decade, every institution relies on the scientific method to find the best predictions and outcomes. Science is why we have such a high standard of living and why you can read articles like these, why would republicans want to subvert it for short term gain?
Insurance companies raise or lower rates or pull out of states not based on whims but based on science. Athletic directors enhance nutrition and strength and conditioning programs not based on folksy stories of grit and determination, but based on science. Advanced materials used in construction of automobiles and buildings aren’t based on lobbyist declarations, but on science. When we turn our back on science in favor of special interest groups or to protect bad actors, we are turning our back on what makes all our lives better.
Republicans do not seem to be interested in using science to better govern. From pulling out of the WHO, to disinvesting in renewable energy,to questioning the efficacy of vaccines, to actively stopping cancer research, they put all of us at risk. Here in the state of Iowa, they seem to be following the national lead by doing everything they can to justify inaction on environmental issues and overaction into reshaping the education curriculum. In the face of scientific opposition, they cite faith-based rhetoric or, more often than not, simply don’t respond at all and just drive forward. This is dangerous and regressive and hurts all of us. In fact, one could say being an Iowa republican is to actively sign on to the idea that science and the scientific method isn’t very useful to policy, but an excellent buzzword to confuse the public.
Republicans have a problem with science, and if they have a problem with science, we should have a problem with them.
EDIT: This is also mandatory reading on the same topic:
Citations: https://littlevillagemag.com/climate-change-evolution-language-removed-by-iowa-department-of-education/
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=91&ba=SSB1028
https://www.thegazette.com/staff-columnists/stop-talking-about-iowas-dirty-water-or-else/