Being an “80’s kid”, a scientist, and a self-admitted nerd, I harbor a great deal of affection for Bill Nye; watching his shows was one of the formative factors in my interest in the natural environment and the application of quantitative approaches to understanding the world around me. I also think its good form to be willing to seriously consider the actions (and interpretations) of those you look up to. These two items came together this afternoon in a rather unexpected and sudden way in the form of the controversy surrounding Bill Nye’s attendance at the State of the Union Address this evening. A fair amount of individuals are disappointed with Bill Nye’s decision to attend as Rep (R) Jim Bridenstine’s guest this evening. Such displeasure has resulted in one scientist/activist group, 500womenscientists, to contribute an unsigned (no author stated) editorial in Scientific American today. Being unsigned indicates that the views conveyed within the missive contain the official opinions of the body being represented.

While I don’t disagree that Mr. Nye’s attendance feels incongruous with his personality and message, as a scientist I am highly disappointed by the content and approach of the editorial, as well as its highly politicized theme, which seems out of place for both the Scientific American and as an official statement by a cohort representing a large body of scientists. The language itself engages in several underhanded tactics including ad hominem attacks, dismissive tone, arguments from authority, as well as gatekeeping. The demagoguery present in this editorial troubles me because I’ve found such arguments to be few and far between in my experience, but it has been increasing in the recent past. In light of this, I’d like to provide a brief rebuttal to the editorial.

Before proceeding, I’d like to ask that you read the editorial linked above for the context of my response.

Bill Nye has not tacitly endorsed anyone’s policies

Despite what the author(s) of the editorial wrote, Mr. Nye has clearly not endorsed Rep. Birdenstine’s worldviews, tacitly or otherwise. In fact, Mr. Nye was quite clear about his motivations and intentions in a series of 5 tweets he sent out yesterday (1/29/18) to address the situation:

  • 1: Tomorrow night I will attend the State of the Union as a guest of Congressman Jim Bridenstine – nominee for NASA Administrator – who extended me an invitation in my role as CEO of The Planetary Society….
  • 2: …The Society is the world’s largest and most influential non-governmental nonpartisan space organization, co-founded by Carl Sagan. While the Congressman and I disagree on a great many issues – we share a deep respect for NASA and its achievements…
  • 3: and a strong interest in the future of space exploration. My attendance tomorrow should not be interpreted as an endorsement of this administration, or of Congressman Bridenstine’s nomination, or seen as an acceptance of the recent attacks on science and the scientific community.
  • 4: The U.S. Space Program has long been a source of American technical achievement, a symbol of our innovative spirit, and a source of national pride. There are extraordinary opportunities for our country, and for all humanity, in the continued exploration of space.
  • 5: Historically, the Space Program has brought Americans together, and during his address, I hope to hear the President’s plans to continue exploring the space frontier.

Given his statements above, Mr. Nye’s attendance does not endorse Rep Birdenstine’s views. To say otherwise is to play into the same “fake news” and finger pointing that most reasonable people would say has deteriorated the quality of public discourse over the past couple of years (and most certainly longer). A more forgiving and tempered approach would be to take Mr. Nye at his word; as far as I’m aware, he hasn’t given us, the public or the scientific community, a reason to question his sincerity as a science advocate.

Bill Nye is engaging people he thinks need engaging.

The editorial criticizes Nye, not only for taking on such roles, but also for doing it “from his position of privilege and public popularity, Nye is acting on the scientific community’s behalf, but without our approval”; “whose approval?”, the reader is left to ask. One of Nye’s strongest personality traits is his willingness to engage in dialogue with people who disagree with him (and scientific fact). Challenging people’s positions and exchanging ideas is a fundamental aspect not only of science, but also of how instruction, education, and persuasion occurs. Mr. Nye has repeatedly shown himself willing to openly and candidly address those with differing worldviews in the hope that he can spread scientific thought. Instead of such commendable actions, the author(s) imply that Mr. Nye, as well as members of the scientific community, should not engage in such activities because such may be “contributing to the false perception that researchers still disagree about basic climate science”. Such statements, and adherence to them, will not only serve to reinforce charges of elitism against scientists, but also simultaneously validate those charges as well.

Political motivations have no place in Science, even if Science should inform political decisions

The author(s) are open about their strong political stance throughout the editorial. Even though I’m not sure that I disagree with any of the positions that they put forth in the editorial or on their website, what is highly concerning to me is that they are strongly advocating intermixing Science with Politics. Such action can result in a number of problems that they have not addressed and may have not considered.

1) The scientific thought process requires researchers to divorce themselves from outside influences including emotional responses, as well as being aware of and correcting for or preventing/mitigating bias. Refusing to separate the two can, and eventually will, result in the degradation of the scientific body of knowledge.
2) It politicizes science, which backfires in a different way. If the many vocal scientists were to adhere to the principals of a major party, it may be taken as an implicit endorsement of science for that party and establishing an additional mental barrier for individuals who may otherwise be receptive to instruction in scientific principals, approaches, and understanding.
3) It will undoubtedly result in friction within scientific circles, on top of its already highly competitive nature.

Each of these results serves to divide or detract from the scientific and (for lack of a better term) civilian community.

Discussion & Conclusion

While the points provided above aren’t exhaustive, they do show a number of problems with the current climate in which scientists feel undermined by those in political authority and have begun to respond in ways that are more normative for public figures instead of the “ideal Scientist” (if one exists). Moreover, we, if you’ll allow me to momentarily speak for the group, do feel under attack by certain segments of the population, not to mention how we may be portrayed by media. Our voices, those same voices who have developed pharmaceuticals, electronics, and unprecedented industrial power, are now met with apathy or disinterest when we voice concerns about global warming (its real), sea level rise (pack up your bags Netherlands), coral bleaching (go see the Great Barrier Reef while you can), or the dangers of overprescribing antibiotics (here come the superbugs). The resounding message I’ve received from every individual I’ve spoken about this to is that this disconnect is (more than) troubling, and which only increases our fervor when we finally do have someone’s ear.

Despite this, we, as the scientific community, should not degenerate into factions, criticize honest and earnest attempts at improving outreach, or lower ourselves to making emotionally-, or even worse, politically-motivated arguments. We should also continue to engage in that age-old practice of “good faith” or taking each other at our word. Without such efforts, we scientists will surely contribute to the continued expansion of tribalism and divisive tactics seen elsewhere in social spheres.

You may disagree with some (or all) of my analysis, but I would like to think that you’d agree that science, as a process and mindset intended to advance and improve humanity, should not be used as a platform to divide us. Let us keep this in mind as we move forward through these challenging times.

Yours most sincerely,

Jacob R. Price