SCIENCE MATTERS by David Suzuki

With a new Conservative prime minister in office, there's been plenty of talk about how much Stephen Harper will try to emulate American-style policies. We can only hope that he doesn't follow the Bush administration's confused, and confusing, take on science.
Most people are probably aware of the US government's official position on climate change, which has ranged from, "It isn't happening" to "It may be happening, but it has nothing to do with people" to "Okay, maybe it is happening, but there's nothing we can really do about it." American diplomats even walked out of talks during the December climate negotiations in Montreal, because they simply were not prepared to discuss any plans that would call for future reductions of heat-trapping emissions.
Meanwhile, the prime minister of the country Bush calls "America's closest ally," Britain, recently included the following in the foreword to the new report Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: "The risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought." Blair called the current growth in greenhouse emissions "unsustainable," noting, "Action now can help avert the worst effects of climate change. With foresight, such action can be taken without disturbing our way of life."
But back in the US, the top climate scientist at NASA has accused the Bush administration of trying to silence him. James Hansen says that after he gave a lecture promoting the necessity of reducing heat-trapping greenhouse emissions, the public affairs headquarters at NASA in Washington, DC ordered a review of all his upcoming lectures, papers, Internet postings and interview requests. Dr. Hansen told the New York Times that nothing in his 30 years with NASA compares to the scrutiny he now faces in his daily activities.
And he's not the only scientist to complain about the Bush administration's unofficial policies of censorship. The Union of Concerned Scientists has gathered a list of more than 8,000 researchers asking the White House to stop politicizing their disciplines. A preface to the list claims, "Across a broad range of issues -- from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health and nuclear weapons -- political appointees have distorted and censored scientific findings that contradict established policies."
Science should not be a partisan issue. In fact, perhaps the best criticism of the American government's politicization of science comes from Republican representative Sherwood Boehlert, who is also chair of the House Science Committee. In a letter to NASA administration, he condemned Dr. Hansen's censorship, writing, "Political figures ought to be reviewing their public statements to make sure they are consistent with the best available science. Scientists should not be reviewing their statements to make sure they are consistent with the current political orthodoxy."
I could not agree more. I obtained my PhD from the University of Chicago in 1961 and shudder to think of what would have happened to my emerging discipline of genetics had the government of the time deemed that it did not conform to established policy. It's ironic that the current government of a country that prides itself on innovation and the quality of its research should be trying to censor the same people responsible for America's continued technological and scientific success.
Not all of Bush's actions on science are off base. In his recent State of the Union address, he committed to a doubling of federal funds for basic scientific research. At a time when more and more research funds are dedicated to applied research, usually with some kind of industrial application, it's refreshing to see an emphasis on the basics that form the backbone of scientific knowledge.
Perhaps Bush's recent announcement signals a change of tune. But unless we see a radical shift, the best advice I can give Harper is that if he hopes to learn anything from Bush's scientific record, it's what not to do.

Join the Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org