Science, Freedom, and the Greater Good

Doug:

Here is a common sentiment found on social media, like Facebook:

"Scientists want to run our lives. They want to control how much we can eat, how much we are allowed to drive, the temperature in our homes, how much water we use, and many other aspects of our lives. The so-called "scientists" think that they know everything, and now want to create laws that force us to obey their wacky ideas. This is really a question of freedom: should they be able to limit our freedom in the name of "science"? No! They are just trying to bully us into obeying them, like any tyrant."

What do you think about this view?

Dr. Jemison is an astronaut and advocates strongly in favor of science education and getting minority students interested in science. She sees science and technology as being very much a part of society.

David:

You need to screen your friends better. All of my friends place blame where it is due, on politicians. Scientists don't regulate the way we live, or strip us of our rights and cash. That all happens in Washington DC, and if Hillary gets elected, she’s already promised more of the same.

Doug:

Luckily, the post wasn't from a friend, or even from anyone that I know. But shouldn't politicians listen to scientists? Shouldn't politicians put on their scientist's hat when making decisions? Shouldn't  "freedoms" sometimes be limited by the impact that science identifies? Isn't there a cost to ignoring science's best practices?

David:

There is science, and then there is the idea of putting science into practice. Those aren't always the same thing, and there is sometimes a difference of opinion as to what the science should mean. All science is not amenable to even being in the realm of government.

Now, if politicians are trying to tackle a specific issue or problem, then certainly lawmakers should consult any science that may be available to solve that specific problem. At the Indiana Statehouse, lawmakers will invite experts to testify at hearings to come up with the best legislation. But these “experts” may just be people with strong opinions about the science. The best expert witness can sway legislators in the same way a jury can be swayed by a convincing witness. And, they have to listen to all of the lobbyists, who usually have compelling, if one-sided, reasons for or against legislation.

It isn't a simple process, and sometimes differing sciences may find themselves at odds. In my opinion, it's usually better for the government to butt out, and let people use the science to improve all of our lives without bureaucratic meddling. Science itself will better our lives, especially if the government doesn't inhibit it with regulations.

Doug:

I guess I am asking about a slightly different issue: when the science is clear, but it has an impact on our lives (described as "freedoms" in the above-quoted rant) should those restrictions be supported/imposed? For example, driving gasoline-powered cars has an impact on the environment. Water usage has an impact on the environment. Not getting vaccinated can have an impact on the community. All of these concerns can be mediated by limiting choices (or encouraging limitations on choice), and rightly we should limit such "freedoms." For example, one should not be allowed to use up all of the water in a region, even if one pays for the water. After all, we don't want to make water only available to the wealthy, but we want to limit consumption. How does government balance individual freedom with the good of all of the people?

David:

It's never quite so simple. Each of those issues has many factors involved, that would need to be evaluated over a long period of time. I choose freedom as the automatic default, except in extreme circumstances.

Doug:

Clever! All you have to do is label a circumstance as "extreme" or not and then you can easily move from one point to the other.

David:

Driving gasoline-powered cars affects the environment, to some degree, but a majority of people depend on their cars for transportation. Freedom to travel and to get to work is very important for people. Freedom to use water for your crops is important. The government has withheld water usage to an entire region in California, and all of those farmers are now out of business and out of work. That was a bad decision that stripped them of their ability to earn a livelihood. Parents have the freedom to refuse to vaccinate their children, but they also have the freedom to make that choice. It’s a non-scientific, stupid decision for most diseases, but it’s still their choice. Freedom.

The more government expands, the fewer freedoms we have.

Doug:

One of the most important roles of the government is to weigh the pros and cons of these uses. Are the farmers' uses more important that the uses of the people in the cities? Or can farming be done in other regions of the country where there are more resources. The problem of looking at any compromise as a limitation of freedoms is that it doesn't properly weigh the benefits of cooperation. These are not fewer freedoms, but merely reasonable constraints.

David:

Unless it’s your farm that is deprived of water and shut down, to benefit farmers in another region. Then it becomes the Big Government picking and choosing winners and losers.

Doug:

But that is an inherent risk with anyone that represents you. Your only recourse is to find someone better to represent you, and everyone.

Usually, when a group of scientists or engineers identify an issue (ozone, endangered species, threat of drought, etc.), then there may need to be some compromise. But, often for the greater good. When does "greater good" ever enter into the equation?

David:

Again, it isn't so clear, politically speaking. Whose “greater good” are you speaking of? You must remember that legislators are elected to represent their constituents. Let’s say you got elected to office, and you have plans to improve your district for the benefit of your constituents. Now, let’s say the issue of irrigation comes into a proposed bill. If scientists say that the water should be diverted elsewhere to benefit a small fish that is endangered, but all of your constituents are against the idea, and call you to demand that you represent them and vote against diverting the water, what would you do?

Doug:

The government (local, regional, and federal) must be smarter than just leaving the decision to a vote of the masses. Otherwise, we wouldn't need elected officials, and we could leave everything to a vote, and the tyranny of the masses.

David:

What if you knew that your vote might be the deciding vote in new computer or internet regulations that will be presented after the next elections? Would you save the fish, put many of your constituents out of work and destroy your district, and not be around to help format regulations and laws to benefit everyone with a computer, because you didn’t get re-elected over this one issue? When Hillary says she will put coal miners out of work, that may be good news for her pet companies like Solyndra, but it definitely isn't good for coal miners or the people who rely on the cheap electricity that comes from coal.

Doug:

Fish needing the internet? I got lost in your analogy. Coal mining, like other outdated jobs, can't be saved by making bad legislation. It isn't about "coal miners vs my pet company" but about the future. There is a cost to using coal (including environment and health) and that must be balanced with the greater good. Let's call it the "extreme" greater good, just so it is easy for you to see the issue.

David:

The other real problem that exists is scientists usually don’t have lobbyists, but corporations that the science threatens do. In politics, money talks. Hillary is on track to raise a Billion dollars for this election. That alone, if you follow statistics, guarantees her a victory in November. Whomever raises the most cash, always wins in politics, with very few exceptions.

Doug:

The problem with money in politics is something that we can agree on! Now, what are we (all) going to do about it?