This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

Ever Wonder Why Congress Makes Stupid Decisions About Science?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 9, 2012
Filed under

Science From Hell, Seth Shostak via Huffington post
“Here’s an idea you probably haven’t considered. Astronomer Edwin Hubble, who first discovered the expansion of the universe, was part of a devilish plan. Measurements of nearby galaxies suggesting that the cosmos began with an explosive event — what we now call the Big Bang — were a conspiracy to ensure that you don’t yearn for spiritual salvation.
What?
No, really. This is the claim of Paul Broun, a Republican representative from Georgia … here’s the zinger: Broun sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

68 responses to “Ever Wonder Why Congress Makes Stupid Decisions About Science?”

  1. NX_0 says:
    0
    0

    In the words of the late Richard Feynman…
    “I think he’s a little nutty.”

  2. Spaceman888 says:
    0
    0

    Becasue they are stupid?

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      It’s not stupidity, it’s a fundamentally different world view. A belief in belief over evidence. That symbolism is more “real” than objective reality.

      (Personally, they creep the hell out of me.)

  3. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    He’s a welfare queen of our science and technology society, an intellectual freeloader, catering to bigots and wrecking America so they can snicker.

    Living off our intellectual capital that powers our society, while never contributing a bit to it. Such shouldn’t receive medical care, or technology products, anything at all modern or “enlightened”.

    He’d last about five minutes outside such in an anti-science culture. It is outrageous that any such should be allowed to serve on such a panel managing a national priority necessary for our countries greatness.

    • Jafafa Hots says:
      0
      0

       I’ve long said that all innovation in culture comes from a small fraction of a percent of us. All art (in all forms), invention, every new idea.

      The rest of us just manage to figure out how to use these things (sometimes barely) without truly understanding them.

      The human race without those few innovators, artists, writers, thinkers –  would still be living in caves.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Unfortunately the electorate is, in some districts, solidly anti-science. We get the government we deserve.

  4. James Lundblad says:
    0
    0

    There should be certification test for serving in public office. They have them for most professions. Ignorant people shouldn’t be allowed to hold office.

    • Tom D says:
      0
      0

      There is a certification test.  It’s called an election. 

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Tom,

        I can’t see that as a meaningful test.  The election process, the democratic principle, and the Constitution all are based on the assumption that voters are making INFORMED decisions about the social issues at stake.  That is not the case, and in fact may never have been the case, and that’s where your election answer fails.  Today’s elections are, for the most part, nothing more than a warm body opinion count, and the opinions are all too often based on nothing solid and no time spent trying to truly understand the social issues at stake.  So, I think James’ statement is quite correct.  It could only improve on the situation, assuming that such a test was done properly, and not just the same guys as now vouching for one another.  America has more of that already than it can survive.

        Steve

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Deleted by user
      failed gibberish test lololol

  5. voxmoor2 says:
    0
    0

    Why oh why did this guy have to be from Georgia (No, I did not vote for this loon. No way, no how).
     

  6. TerryG says:
    0
    0

    Tradition?

  7. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    Praise the Lord, but pass the exam!

    If Georgia chooses to elect a man who’s living centuries in the past, that’s up to them.  I think he’s an outright idiot, but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee Georgians the right to elect a fruitcake if they wish.  But how on Earth was he selected/assigned to sit on a federal science committee?  That is truly insane.  Clearly the process of assigning people to committees and subcommittees needs some serious review by responsible grownups.

    Also, I’d say that people like him are one of the reasons that the American public school system continues to deteriorate.  Even the best of teachers can’t overcome the combination of TV and people like Broun.

    I hate to sound morbid, but I hope his family has life insurance. This guy is a walking target. I wouldn’t be surprised to to see the Republican party disown him.

    • Helen Simpson says:
      0
      0

      Saying that Broun is living in the past is perhaps an undeserved apology for him. People living in the past may have felt this way because there was no evidence otherwise. Now we have that evidence. But yes, Broun is just an outright idiot. He might well have been just as much of an idiot, for other reasons, if he were living in the past.

      Again, the point is that we the people elect idiots like this. Why? Are there a majority of idiots in this country? Or perhaps his scientific views are just seen as forgiveable by the electorate. If so, isn’t it remarkable how the electorate doesn’t seem to value scientific literacy in their leaders? That may be the real lesson here. And yes, to the extent our kids look up to our leaders, the example Broun sets is certainly not a good one.

      • Mark_Flagler says:
        0
        0

        I agree, but there are more options. He is either a liar (willing to say anything necessary to get elected) and a hypocrite or a fool.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      “But how on Earth was he selected/assigned to sit on a federal science committee?”

      Most Congresscritters wouldn’t give two hoots about science. Hence the science committee wouldn’t be seen as a high-value slot. People like Broun are, of course, obsessed with their conspiracy view, and he would have fought to get on; and others would have been happy to give him something they see as worthless in return for whatever favours/votes/loyalty they got back.

      It’s the same reason US school boards seem to be filled with obsessive nutters. The same reason moralising weirdos seem to have inordinate political influence out of all proportion with their numbers.

      Crazy beats apathy.

  8. Oglenn Smith says:
    0
    0

    His party has nothing to do with this stupid congressman.

    • nasa817 says:
      0
      0

      His party has everything to do with it.  They have the majority in the House and as such, assigned him to this committee.  The Republican party is being co-opted by such extremists and the party is not trying to refute it or stop it.  In fact, the party is embracing it.  All Republicans may not support Broun’s views, but the Republican leadership does.  You hear this type of anti-science diatribe every day from their party leaders and ideological leaders (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.). 

  9. mattmcc80 says:
    0
    0

    What cracks me up about Broun is that he’s one of a handful of representatives on the House Science Committee who actually does have a remotely scientific background (M.D, B.S in chemistry).  And he doesn’t believe that embryology is real.   I’m less bothered by these kooks when they argue against the Big Bang than I am when they deny the existence of a process that we can trigger and watch under a microscope.

  10. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Brown has plenty of company; there’s Bill Posey, who represents a district close to Kennedy Space Center, who tried to defund all NASA climate research because he believes climate change is just a political plot. 

    • Mark_Flagler says:
      0
      0

      Rep. Akin (of “women have a way of shutting that sort of thing down in cases of legitimate rape” fame) also sits on the committee. It’s a wonder we don’t have to boil our water.

      Rep. Broun, heaven help us, is an MD; I suspect he uses a wooden mask and a bag of chicken bones in his practice. I have to wonder how his state medical society views him.

      • Russel aka 'Rusty' Shackleford says:
        0
        0

        And which pary has a Congressman who thinks Guam is going to tip over?  Which party has a Congresswoman who thinks the rover on Mars can see the flags the Astronauts planted there?

        Both sides are about equally guilty as far as I can see.

        • SanityIn2012 says:
          0
          0

          I can’t see how these are equal.  Some people may be unknowledgable, but others are anti-science.

          • Russel aka 'Rusty' Shackleford says:
            0
            0

            So being anti-plate tectonics is not being anti-science?  Just because somebody is a Creationist does not make them anti-the other 99% of Scientific thought.

          • Ralphy999 says:
            0
            0

            If you think the earth is only 9,000 years old then you are presuming to know God’s time framework which should disqualify you from any rational scientific decision making/funding process. 

      • Ralphy999 says:
        0
        0

        It’s a proven fact that witch doctors can be pretty darn effective. It says right here in my Republican Candidate Diversity Training Manual, chapter1, page 2.

    • Steven Rappolee says:
      0
      0

      the Kennedy space center( and Brownsville) will be among the first to go under the waves, but not to worry, big bird and I will be among the first to migrate away, indeed all of us will be dead at the turn of the century as that angry white man ocean rises up to smite us
      of course I am safe here in my blue state………………300 meters above sea level

  11. James Lundblad says:
    0
    0

    I expect God is a big advocate for science and exploration. I really liked David Brin’s talk as PlanetFest.

    http://www.youtube.com/watc

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      The full version of that throw-away comment about God commanding us to name things…

      http://www.youtube.com/watc

      tl;dw – a) The first commandment by God for Adam before things got… messy, was “Name all the beasts”, ie, know and understand creation. b) While decadent societies are smited/destroyed, over-ambitious societies are gently given greater challenges. Even the Original Sin was punished only be being make to go and get jobs. Hence c) science is the purest form of worship.

  12. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    One has to wonder if Mr. Broun, should he have serious health problems, would rely entirely on the bible for his salvation, instead of the doctors whose treatments are based on the kind of scientific inquiry that he denies here. Or perhaps not using the everyday technological tools (telephones, elevators, hearing aids) that such inquiry begat. Yes, there are some who would indeed do that, but I’ll bet that Broun isn’t one of them.

    While such views are hugely exasperating, one has to partly blame at least the science community for not working harder, with educators, to help establish scientific inquiry in a way that doesn’t necessarily have to be threatening to pious people. Most of the scientists I know simply take a this-way-or-the-highway attitude, and presume that students are “smart” enough to understand the difference, when confronted with “facts”. It’s not that simple. “Facts” mean different things to different people.

    One has to assume that it’s people like Broun, and their sadly misplaced beliefs, that are at least partly responsible for the documented decline in religious affiliation in our country. If this is what religion is about, many people would say, then it just ain’t for me.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Or perhaps not using the everyday technological tools

      Helen,

      He was talking into a microphone and obviously knew he was being recorded, so I would say that makes your point perfectly; he’ll go which ever way suits him.

      It seems ironic that the current Pope has a more scientifically enlightened view of the world than Mr. Broun.

      In all seriousness, I wonder if his words were selected for that specific audience and he might have said something completely different in a different setting.  I also wouldn’t rule out senility.

      Steve

    • Mark_Flagler says:
      0
      0

      Good point, Helen. Why isn’t he a Christian Scientist?

  13. Matt Johnson says:
    0
    0

    Seriously, this guy has a B.S. in chemistry and an M.D.?!  Wow.

  14. chriswilson68 says:
    0
    0

    With democracy you have to take the bad with the good.  A small part of the US population has such an extreme anti-scientific world-view.  That small part of the population is represented in Congress by this guy with a similar anti-scientific world-view.

    On the other hand, the vast majority of our Congressional representatives don’t have this extreme an anti-scientific world view.

    Most people in the US have a world view that combines some amount of evidence-based belief with some non-evidence-based belief (i.e. religion).  You can either be unhappy about the amount of non-evidence-based belief or happy that the amount of evidence-based belief is so much higher than through most of human history.

    • Mark_Flagler says:
      0
      0

      It’s not a small part. Close to fifty percent of US citizens doubt evolution, the age of the Earth, etc., and think about the good old days when men rode dinosaurs.

  15. Mark_Flagler says:
    0
    0

    Here is a link to an online petition demanding the resignation of Broun from the committee.

    https://www.change.org/peti… 

    • Mark_Flagler says:
      0
      0

      As of 5:45 Wednesday, the petition had just under 80,000 signatures and was gaining them at more than 1000 per hour despite what seems to be a denial-of-service attempt by “persons unknown.”

      Those of you with experience with online petitions realize that this is pretty exceptional performance. Broun appears to have crossed a line with a lot of people.
      BTW, the petition site seems to have been designed with Internet Explorer in mind and appears to have some Microsoftian peculiarities. Chrome got me nowhere.

    • mattmcc80 says:
      0
      0

      Let’s imagine for a moment this succeeds.  Laudable accomplishment.  What about the chairman, Ralph Hall, who writes off any evidence climate change as “not believable” and just an excuse to get money?  What about Todd Akin and his famous interpretation of the reproductive process?  It’s not like Broun is the only scientifically confused House Science Committee member.

  16. DocM says:
    0
    0

    It’s bipartisan.

    Gallup did a poll this summer that showed 46% of Americans are Creationists, and even though some here think that’s all due to Republicans the poll found that 41% of Democrats are also Creationists.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      There are many people today (including many members of the clergy) who believe in divine creation but do not believe this in any way conflicts with the scientific account of the history of the universe or evolution. Indeed Charles Darwin himself (whose diploma was in theology rather than science) was of this view when he formulated his theory, though he ultimately lost his faith over another issue, the problem of pain. Broun belongs to a second group (unfortunately also large) which actually rejects science.

  17. jski says:
    0
    0

    I wonder if this bonehead realized is was a ordained Catholic priest who first realized that implicit in Einstein’s equations for general relativity was an constantly expanding universe and hence, a universe that continuously contracted as you go back in time.  When Georges Lemaître approached Einstein with this he reportedly said: “Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable.”

    The father of the Big Bang theory is a Catholic priest.

  18. lcham678 says:
    0
    0

    This is not science but it does show the lack of intelligence up there.
    http://www.youtube.com/watc

  19. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Broun is running unopposed. If you have any doubt of his support among the electorate, read the rather apologetic statement by UGA scientists (probably worried about funding) trying to explain why he should please not see them as a threat to his views, and the comments by readers. http://onlineathens.com/opi

  20. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    No, that doesn’t cut it. While many people don’t agree with those views, they still have to respect them. But no sensible person should respect denial of scientific evidence. Broun could express skepticism, perhaps. But he won’t even go that far. He knows the answers.

    So you’re saying we should just look the other way? Nope. This guy is telling us that he’s stupid. He’s telling us that his whole view of the physical world is absolutely defined by what he reads in a particular book.

    There are many politicans that could advance Brouns political leanings without being stupid. Why should we settle for him?

    Sorry, but “casual remarks” like this are not the mark of leadership.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      defined by what he reads in a particular book

      … which was basically written 2,000 years ago!

  21. SanityIn2012 says:
    0
    0

    “that boy in the White House”???  Really?  Are we back in the 1950’s again?

  22. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    Dilemma.  Do I believe Paul Broun or Steven Hawking?  Hmm…

  23. yg1968 says:
    0
    0

    What worries me is not what strange things certain persons believe in, it’s the intolerance of some towards other persons that have different beliefs. It’s ironic that this intolerance is generally shown by people that claim to be “tolerant” and against any form of discrimination. But I guess these principles only apply to people that believe the same things that they do…  

    • mattmcc80 says:
      0
      0

      One of my favorite Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes: “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”You don’t get to say you don’t believe in a demonstrable fact of science like how an embryo develops and expect people to respect your belief.  Now, if he was just some random Georgian, I wouldn’t care so much.  But he’s a policy maker for federal scientific research, which makes his choice to write off the scientific method as an anti-religions conspiracy immensely disturbing.

      • yg1968 says:
        0
        0

        Sometimes science goes to far. When Hawking says in his recent book (the Grand Design) that string theory proves that God doesn’t exist, he goes too far. His arguments aren’t even convincing and were easily refuted by other scientists such as Paul Davies in his book, the Goldilocks Enigma.  Science doesn’t have all of the answers. Hawking might be a great scientist but he doesn’t have all of the answers.  In a nutshell, I disagree with Tyson, science isn’t always true. We don’t know every thing and some of the stuff we believe to be scientifically proven today will later be discredited by new scientific discoveries. It’s unfortunate but some scientists have an agenda and don’t know when to admit that they simply don’t know.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Which side of the debate gets the most things right .. long term

          Which side has a self correcting mechanism?

          Science, in the long term has gotten more things right then religion on just about everything.

          When science was wrong on certain things in the early days of the enlightenment, through rigorous debate, science adopted new techniques, new ideas, new theories.

          Religion is monolithic. it is forever, unchanging. Anything change is seen as an act of the devil. Religion is to keep everything constant and unchanging.

          Reading was seen as a threat to religion, we can not be having the congregation reading the bible and coming to their own conclusions.

          Galilao, Copernicus, etc … science does not send people to hell for proposing something new, ban and excomunicate.

          The difference is night and day.

          • yg1968 says:
            0
            0

            That’s a bit of an exageration. The Vatican thinks that the Big Bang Theory is consistent with the Book of Genesis. But I am sure that they disagree with Hawking that string theory proves that God doesn’t exist. Hawking’s theory is that there was an infinite number of universes that appeared before the Big Bang and the fact that our Universe has life is simply explained by the fact that the odds were that at least one of these universes would have life. It’s kind of the survival of the fitest theory applied to the creation of our Universe (i.e. a natural selection of universes happenned). In other words, acording to Hawkin, God did not create life, life just happenned because of the odds. A lot of string theorists disagree with Hawking that their theory leads to such a conclusion.  Furthermore, his explanation doesn’t explain who or what created these infinite number of universes. When it comes to the origins of the universe, there is a lot of huntches and theories that simply don’t add up. And like I said before, unfortunatelly, some scientists have agendas.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          I disagree with Tyson, science isn’t always true

          yg,

          What is your evidence for this assertion?  I consider demonstratable evidence to be important.  Yes, science makes mistakes, but then it goes on to correct itself, or at least incrementally improve upon itself.  Religion, on the other hand, is not backed by any demonstratable evidence, but rather handed-down stories, rewritten countless times.  And Religion rarely, by comparison, seeks to either correct or update itself.

          Agreed, Hawking doesn’t have all the answers, and I’m sure he’d be the first one to tell you so.  But he’s been trying for his whole adult life to find better, more complete answers, based whenever possible on experimental evidence.  People like Broun, however, are simply repeating the same unsupported stories and opinions over and over again, basically the same stuff for many centuries.

          Personally, I think there’s nothing wrong with belief.  But to say that the unsupported belief is true and this therefore makes demonstratable scientific facts wrong, is not logical.

          Religion played a vital role in the maturing of the human race in past centuries, when science was in its infancy and before that.  But it’s a different world today.  Science offers improvements in the human condition, a better quality of life and health, whereas certain Religious policies still work to do the exact opposite (banning birth control is an obvious example).

          There’s another aspect that truly bothers me.  If you look at the history of wars and their causes, then we can’t escape the fact that, throughout time, Religion is second only to old age in the number of people that it has killed.  Past and present, more people have died battling over Religious differences than any other cause.

          I think people are entitled to their beliefs, and I even encourage them, because throughout human history beliefs  have provided “answers” where none existed from other sources.  It didn’t matter if the answers  were right or wrong; they provided the sense of comfort that people needed.  Today’s world is very different.  We have answers from science, answers that can be demonstrated and have proved their worth by how they have improved our lives.  And in today’s world, it makes much more of a difference whether the answers are right or wrong. because there is so much more at stake — the world is overpopulated; resources are diminishing; we’re killing ourselves and our planet in many ways; and one man can kill a million people with a  couple of hours effort.  We can’t afford to discard reality for something more comforting, because when any of us puts on the blinders and takes the easy way out, we hurt more people than just ourselves.

          I fully embrace tolerance, but Mr. Broun, by virtue of his professed beliefs combined with his position of power in the government, is effectively forcing his beliefs, or at least the consequences of them, on millions of people.  And that’s just plain wrong.

          Steve

          • yg1968 says:
            0
            0

            I don’t disagree with most of you said. But it bothers me that more and more books written by scientists claim that God doesn’t exist based on dubious scientific theories. Most of these theories would probably not be published in peer reviewed articles. But they probably sell well as books because they are controversial. These theories are based on certain scientific principles but they are not necessarily true. As far as Religion starting wars, yes and it’s unfortunate that certain leaders use religon as an excuse for war. But money and politics have also started war and nobody is suggesting that we need to get rid of money and democracy because of this.

  24. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    The Democrats have decided not to oppose him this year, so his re-election is assured. This disappoints me. While such a race might not have succeeded in his district, I do not feel it would have been futile.

  25. mattmcc80 says:
    0
    0

    If he wasn’t on the House Science Committee he’d just be another scientifically clueless Republican and I wouldn’t care nearly as much.  But he is involved in making very important federal policy decisions regarding a field of study he proudly refutes as an anti-religious conspiracy.  That’s not cool.

  26. Steve Pemberton says:
    0
    0

    There is a place for science, and there is a place for religion.  They can coexist, however only with care, and with a respect for differing opinions.  Rep. Broun is not exercising the care required, for this reason I believe that he is not a good representative of religion.  Of course as is also obvious he is not a good representative for science.

    The universe seems like a fine Swiss watch, filled with intricate and elegant mechanisms. Through scientific discoveries we can see this at all scales – galactic, planetary, geological, biological, molecular, even subatomic. And there are fantastic, almost unfathomable forces and laws which seem to perfectly govern these mechanisms at all scales. And then there is life itself, which is probably the most amazing mechanism of all.  

    Some people, including myself, see all of this wondrous integration of elegance and complexity at every scale and at every turn, as evidence that there is a creator.  Others don’t.  This situation is understandable, since the creator, if you believe that there is one, has chosen to demonstrate their existence through their handiwork in a way which allows each individual to either believe or not believe, i.e. faith. 

    Historically there has sometimes been a conflict between religion and science.  In many cases the fault lay with people of religion. Oftentimes scientific ignorance, combined with scriptural ignorance, causes some religious people (note – not all) to create conflicts when there shouldn’t be.  The Bible didn’t say that the Earth is the center of the physical universe, so that should not have been a point of contention when it was finally proven scientifically that it wasn’t. The Bible didn’t say that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and was created in a time period equal to six rotations of the Earth, even though that is a common, although not universally accepted interpretation of the Genesis account.  Many people (including myself) believe that the use of days to describe creation was meant only to symbolize the passage of time, as opposed to an instantaneous creation of everything at one moment. In fact in the Genesis account, God instructs Adam and Eve to “replenish the Earth”, which suggests that the Earth had existed long before man.  

    The most ironic example is the Big Bang theory.  Bible believers were once considered to be behind the times scientifically because of their belief that the universe had a beginning. In fact some scientists apparently objected to the Big Bang theory because it seemed to have religious connotations. So it is surprising that so many religious people still see the Big Bang theory as a threat to their faith. 

    Scientific discovery has provided much to our society, and we owe a great debt to those who have dedicated their lives to it.  Although science does not answer everything. It does not address the immeasurable things – Trust. Love. Loyalty. Fear. Hate. Purpose. Happiness. Yes I realize that there are scientific theories about the evolution of these emotions, and that sciences like psychology attempt to deal with them, however realistically science provides little guidance when it comes to those aspects of life which more than anything define what it is to be human.  Clearly someone does not have to be religious to deal with these subjects, however religion has provided answers and meaning on these topics for billions of people over the centuries, in spite of situations where religion has been used by some for their own benefit, wars being an example. 

    There is one final thing which science does not address which is whether the human consciousness and all of its memories dies along with the body, or whether the soul lives on with its creator.  This is not a scientific question, this is a question of faith and always will be.  

  27. nasa817 says:
    0
    0

    I would say Broun’s stupidity and ignorance is typical of those who share these views you’ve listed, which are equally devoid of factual basis.