The scientific establishment is Democratic.
News to anyone? Probably not. After all, Democrats by and large promote increases in NIH and NSF funding, tout the importance of the scientific consensus, and so on. But when one is, oh, say, not a Democrat, and trying to do science within the field as it currently exists, there are bound to be frustrating moments.
Take, for example, two seminars in a year with national Democratic representatives. Let me add that these seminars are ambiguously mandatory, with a sign in sheet at many, though not all events, and that they are catered by the program. Imagine a room full of decidedly left leaning individuals with their representative on stage. These reps, so far as I can tell, have nothing to talk about but their political leanings and aspirations. And they'll have all the time in the world to tell you how important they think it is to support, Education and (National) Health Care. They'll also mention how they plan, at the Federal level, to fund Science, Education and (National) Health Care. Nevermind where the money is coming from...
Now I'm not saying no seminar has had a Independent, Republican, or otherwise non-democratically leaning individual who has weighed in, where asked, on political issues. It's just that I have yet to see such an individual given an open forum with a mandate to talk about politics. And perhaps I am being unfair, since I can't imagine any such speakers wanting to wade into the issues of a limited Federal role in that crowd. The Feds are our lifeblood, as it currently stands, and I am one of the few who bites the hand that feeds him. Hell, I have even applied for Federal grants, and benefit from State money given to our Cancer Center, so who am I to complain?
But of course that is exactly the ratchet of Federal authority, ever gaining constituents through patronage, that erodes limited government. I have to live within the system as it exists, even as I argue for its change, as I do here. I just wish that this group of ostensibly deeply thinking individuals were less overwhelmingly game to sign on with whoever holds the purse strings. And I wish they didn't strongly (though perhaps unintentionally) broadcast their inclinations from the top down.
I hate being a naysayer, and I hate biting back at a program that has given me a great deal. But in case people are suffering under the illusion that the MD/PhD program at UNC has built a scientific consensus that you should vote for David Price and Kay Hagen , I just want to make it clear that it has not.
Slightly paranoid? Hagan just happens to be intimately connected with the program and Price is our local representative regardless of his affiliation. This is also the problematic view of balance where one thinks equal time is the key to some sense of fairness. Arguing for a limited government role is fine and worthwhile, that's not naysaying, but this sounds more like a teenage whine that no one understands me.
ReplyDeleteI thought I'd tried hard to write this post as a reasonable dissent in response to a personally aggravating experience. Maybe you can point out where the whining is for me.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually not arguing for equal time, though I do point out that it is not given. I would prefer that MD/PhD seminar not become a political forum, and that no elected representatives or candidates for elected office be given the floor in what is a required seminar in a Federally funded program.
Sorry that might've been a bit unfair of me - just the title and the tone (casting oneself as "one of the few", the repression from the "top down", etc).
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure - we've had seminars from the business development side, entrepreneurs, private sector physicians and a number of diverse folks. In any case think 2 out of 20 or so seminars in that period does not seem excessive. And why would we want to restrict exposure to individuals and issues that fundamentally affect all of our work and careers? There is no need to silo science or doubt our ability to think critically regardless of what we're exposed to.
I have never claimed to be repressed, only frustrated, which is different. Clearly I feel perfectly free to voice my concerns here. The top down refers to who picks the seminars, which is our program's administration.
ReplyDeleteI do see your point that 2 out of 20 ain't bad, and that the 2 representatives who happen to be close to the program happen to be Democrats. The principle I am operating from is very simple: that we should not permit candidates for public office to use forums created by public money for politicking. It allows an unproductive cycle of influence peddling.