In writing about Governor Rick Perry’s approach to science, the
New Republic’s Jonathan Chait
argues:
[Perry] rejects scientific findings when they
complicate his theological or ideological worldview. He’s
accused climate scientists of running a corrupt scam — a deranged
belief that’s increasingly common among movement
conservatives.
What’s more, the implications of Perry’s willingness to
discard science go well beyond scientific issues. It suggests a
general unwillingness to acknowledge empirical results that run
counter to one’s ideological dispositions. That was an enormous
problem in the Bush administration, but ultimately one, it seems,
conservatives are happy to repeat.
Talk about deranged. Chait is claiming that Perry simply
ignores reality when it is at odds with ideology. Sort of like EPA
administrator Lisa Jackson continuing to link ozone levels to the
risk of autism or John Holdren, Obama’s science adviser, writing
about global warming: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility
to bring that about?” Or maybe he was thinking about how Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention delayed the rollout of the swine
flu program. CDC and the White House caved in to the anti-vaccine
crazies and pulled multi-dose swine flu shots because they
contained thimerasol.
By contrast, Perry follows the science when it establishes
a causal link between one event or mechanism and a measurable
outcome. When his executive order requiring the HPV vaccine for all
girls entering sixth grade was overridden by the Texas legislature,
Perry rejected arguments by some social conservatives that
vaccinating girls and young women against HPV might encourage
premarital sex. In a written message about his decision, Perry
said even if they do make wrong choices, the “greater imperative is
to protect life.” Perry also
said that attempts to discredit the HPV vaccine amount to
“hyperbole that doesn’t stand up in light of
clinical data.”
As the headline for a National Public Radio report
stated: “Perry Position On HPV Vaccine For Girls Followed
Expert Medical Advice.” NPR reported, “The vaccine is recommended
for girls at age 11 or 12 not just by the federal government’s
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, but also the American
Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, and
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.”
During the recent Republican presidential debate,
Bachmann, Santorum, and Ron Paul seemed to suggest that parental
rights trump immunization requirements in every case. (Do they
oppose all immunization requirements for children?) Even then, this
reaction against vaccines crosses party lines. The largest outbreak
of vaccine preventable diseases in America took place in the most
liberal of enclaves: Marin County, California.
What about stem cell research? Chait notes that Perry
established the Cancer Prevention and Research
Institute of Texas (CPRIT), a $3 billion, 10-year
cancer research
fund. He doesn’t note that CPRIT recently
recruited Dr. Sean Morrison, leading stem cell researcher — and
vocal proponent of embryonic stem cell research — to establish a
pediatric cancer initiative at University of Texas (UT)
Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
Why did Morrison come to Texas? While I have been spending
the last five to six years arguing with
the Michigan legislature about what kind of
research would be permitted in the state, in Texas they were
looking for ways to invest billions of dollars into medical
research.
Perry has consistently stated he would veto any
legislation to fund ESC research. But he has not supported several
bills that would ban it either. More proactively Perry has
sought to make Texas “the world’s leader in the research
and use of adult stem cells.”
Regarding climate change Perry wrote: “The complexities of
the global atmosphere have often eluded the most sophisticated
scientists…. draconian policies with dire economic effects based on
so-called science may not stand the test of time. Quite frankly,
when science gets hijacked by the political Left, we should all be
concerned.”
Chait calls that deranged. But the estimates of climate
change used by the Left in developing plans to reduce emissions are
the most extreme of six different models. Even the International
Panel on Climate Change notes the chance of fast and severe climate
change is small. Policies based on the more severe estimates would
not only reduce economic growth, particularly among the world’s
poorer nations, but also require a decline in living standards. As
Matt Ridley notes, a warmer and richer world will be more likely to
improve the well-being of both human beings and ecosystems than a
cooler but poorer one.
Rick Perry supports science-based health prevention, stem
cell research, and environmental regulations by balancing one set
of estimates with the impact they can have on human well-being. If
that approach meshes with his “theological and ideological
worldview,” I’m all for repeating early and often.
