POLITICS VERSUS SCIENCE: APPORTIONING ... - Buffalo State

when scientist assumes the role of politician. A successful politician is an effective and
popular governor, while the scientist’s mettle is measured almost exclusively by research
output, or discovery. So while the people and their government evaluate the politician,
the academy shapes the scientist’s reward structure. Politicians, seeking to satisfy the
public and the government they serve, ask: “How much will the regulation cost the
taxpayers? What constituencies will be impacted? How will they be impacted? Will
government be held responsible for food crises?” Scientists, trained to think in terms of
chance (probability theory) and generalizability (the goal of science) ask, “How can we
reduce the probability of incidences of undesirable outcomes?” trained as they are that
the probability of a Type I error can be reduced, never eliminated.
This tension between politicians and scientists is hardly a new concept: it grew to
a virtual religion in the 19 th Century Saint-Simonian (and primarily, European)
movement of "New Christianity," which called for government by a theocracy of
scientists, engineers, and philosophers. More recently, EU scholars have considered the
impact of this different orientation of scientists and politicians in policymaking.
Accordingly, Majone (1989, 4) writes, “When science, technology, and public policy
intersect, different attitudes, perspectives, and rules of argument come into sharp
conflict.” Joerges (2001, 3) asks us to consider, “To what degree should, could, or does
‘expertise’ replace legal, political and ethical criteria?” Identifying three domains—
scientific, environment, market—in EU biotechnology policy, Patterson (2000, 318)
finds “there is little overlap,” between scientists arguing for demonstrated risks, on one
side, and consumers, politicians, and environmentalists on the other, advocating the
promulgation of regulations based on potential risks. The 2003 outbreak of Foot and
4