Mike the Mad Biologist laments the lack of political and public relations savvy of the “scientific leadership.”
One major problem that those who fight for evolution face is an inept scientific ‘leadership.’ Only the DLC has worse political instincts. This is a leadership that has presided over the gradual and steady de-funding of science, done nothing to change the public perception of evolutionary biology (a recent Harris poll indicates that the public’s views on evolution haven’t changed in the last decade), and has a very poor political sense in that there is no message discipline (we don’t have unified talking points and are out-organized by those opposed to science-go read Chris Mooney for examples).
I’d like to know more about the leadership he’s referring to. Who is it exactly? I’d hesitate to pin all of science’s problems on them, when any public representative gets so little attention to begin with. Besides, I tend to take a more structural view of things, looking for larger-scale explanations than simply the ineptitude (or savvy) or a few movement leaders. Nonetheless, Mike’s point is an argument I hadn’t heard before, therefore intriguing, and his suggestions about framing the question of evolution are excellent.
No comments have been added to this post yet.