Foot in Mouth Disease?
This is startling stuff. Michigan Republican Vernon Ehlers, who's generally considered a moderate and science buddy, has defended asking scientists political litmus test-type questions when considering them for government advisory panels:
Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), who has a doctorate in physics, said that in appointing members to advisory committees "a single, guiding principle should be applied -- select the most qualified person for the job." In the case of presidential appointments, however, he said "it is important that the scientist be in tune with the philosophy of the appointing president."
Asked by Porter whether he thought it was acceptable to ask about party affiliation or recent presidential voting when considering a candidate for a science advisory committee, Ehlers answered: "I think it's an appropriate question. I don't think scientists should consider themselves a privileged class -- that politics is for everyone else and not for them."
He also said that a question about the morality of abortion "is a question that is very pertinent to some committees' work."
I'm pretty stunned by this. So are the House Democrats on the Science Committee, who've put out a press release distancing themselves from Ehlers' remarks.
Here's why this is so disturbing. If we don't maintain a kind of buffer zone between science and politics, then there's a danger of science simply becoming politics by other means. Ehlers is basically endorsing the idea that the scientific advisory structure of the government should reflect the party in power, and that's clearly crossing a big fat line in the sand.
|