Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

SciencePAC

Chad Orzel mentions an idea by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum from their book Unscientific America.

Why not form a nonpartisan science political action committee, or PAC, devoted to funding candidates who are either scientists themselves or who make science a strong priority and have good records on science issues? With adequate fundind, the PAC might select, say, five or ten members or candidates to support each election cycle. If there’s a desire to be really aggressive (and we have mixed feelings about this strategy), it could also target science “bad guys”– climate change deniers, officials who promote manufactured scientific controversies, anti-evolutionists, and the like– who deserve to be unelected and give campaign funds to their opponents.

I think this is a great idea, and one that’s long overdue. Having pro-science candidates isn’t something that will happen by accident, or (if you’ll pardon the pun) by natural selection. Putting some skin in the game goes a long way towards making sure the things that are important to you are being represented in your government. The anti-science forces have no qualms about doing this. I see no reason why the pro-science side should stay on the sidelines. I can understand the concern about undercutting the impartiality of science, but when one side is advocating lies and distortions, I don’t see how standing up for the truth is a problem.

And yes, I think it’s as important to target bad guys as it is to promote the good guys. Use the Texas Parent PAC, which has promoted pro-education candidates in both parties, as a model. They put themselves on the map by knocking off State Rep. Kent Grusendorf, the public education-hating chair of the House Education Committee, back in 2006, doing the state of Texas an enormous favor in the process. A pro-science PAC could do a lot more good next year by backing primary challengers to Don McLeroy and Cynthia Dunbar for the State Board of Education, shifting to support Dunbar’s Democratic opponent in the general election if need be. Honestly, this is a no-brainer.

Now Mooney and Kirshenbaum are writing about a national PAC, presumably to affect Congressional races, but the point is the same, and frankly there’s no reason there couldn’t be a bunch of state PACs that take after a national PAC. And if you really are squeamish about raising money for candidates, you can always go the grassroots activism route, though you’ll still need to raise money for it. The bottom line is that the scientific community is operating at a disadvantage, and the sooner it realizes that, the better.

Oh, and if the SBOE’s latest hijinx is any indication, historians should be forming a PAC as well. Clearly, no academic discipline is safe as long as this clown show is on the air.

Related Posts:

6 Comments

  1. […] the Kuff suggests that a pro-science PAC could do a lot of good, nationally and in […]

  2. […] the Kuff suggests that a pro-science PAC could do a lot of good, nationally and in […]

  3. […] the Kuff suggests that a pro-science PAC could do a lot of good, nationally and in […]

  4. […] the Kuff suggests that a pro-science PAC could do a lot of good, nationally and in […]

  5. […] the Kuff suggests that a pro-science PAC could do a lot of good, nationally and in […]

  6. Brandy Galos says:

    I was just researching this exact thing – a pro-science PAC targeting the luddites in the US Congress – when I cam across this post. Our working idea for a name is *PAC Rational*.

    Do you know if anything came of this on a national level? Or who I could ask about it?

    This blog shows how hard and frustrating the battle’s you’ve taken on in Texas, but I see the victories and I think how cool it must be for you to see the difference you are making. I want that for myself and my cause.

    If I were to start a National PAC like this, what advice would you give me?

    Thanks advance!

    Brandy Galos