“Politicization is inevitable when governments provide funding for science,” begins William Harper in his essay about the harmful effects of politicized science. “The public expects to get something back from the science they support-for example, better health, national security, jobs” (27). He goes on to explain that “normal” politicization can actually benefit society, or one can take the concept to the other extreme, where governments and powerful organizations use science and scientists who also benefit from the politicization to accomplish their non-scientific goals (27). This problem is also addressed, if not directly, in many aspects of literature today.
Michael Crichton's State of Fear and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth present the topic of global warming as different types of politicized science and discuss the effects of politicized science on society. In Crichton's novel, he maintains a firm position, stating that Global Warming has been used as a tool to further the careers of many politicians who exaggerate the facts to gain more attention. On the other hand, Gore counters that Global Warming is as real as it has been touted, and it is not the government or its officials that are detrimental to the reformation movement, but the lack of concern among the general public. However, the two authors do agree on the fact that politicized science is adulterated science - leaving many adverse effects in the wake of its controversy. But Gore defends his position that it is sometimes necessary to be heard.
To exemplify radical scenarios, Crichton switches the common roles between environmentalists and the general public to caricaturize two adverse effects of politicized science - ignorance and greed. In most cases, the fight to save the planet is a noble cause, and the environments are the protagonists, battling against wave after wave of ignorant masses. However, it is these “ignorant masses” that are the protagonists in State of Fear, working to prevent the overly zealous environmentalists from reaching their goal. The environmentalists are part of one of two fictitious organizations, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Natural Earth Resource Foundation (NERF). Crichton uses these two organizations to depict two prevalent problems when it comes to politicized science. In the case of ELF, it is a group of conservationists with good intentions but execute them without regard for others.
It is inferred in the novel that ELF does not know everything about global warming, and chooses to act irrationally and erroneously on that incomplete data, using violence to raise awareness for their cause. Kenner, a character in the novel, describes the group as “consist[ing] of separate cells that never communicate with one another” (Crichton, 181). Taking everything into consideration, ELF does more harm than good, creating scandals, causing deaths and injuries, and raising unnecessary and costly legal expenses. The other group of conservationists depicted is not so extreme, but still as harmful to the field of science as ELF was. The Natural Earth Resource Foundation is used by Crichton to show the more political side of the problem.
The reader is first led to believe NERF is at the forefront of the conservation movement, but as the characters also slowly discover, this is not the case. In secret footage Evans watches, one of the leaders, Henley, describes their monetary situation, “[Global warming]'s what we have to work with” (Crichton, 295), indicating that to them, global warming is not a pressing environmental issue, but a means of making a profit. Later, NERF is also discovered to be using data that is doctored to look more impressive. While NERF may not produce repercussion that are as tangible as ELF does, both groups in their own way do represent those that destroy the integrity of science and end up feeding false information to public for their own benefit.
While Al Gore's writings do not have the nearly the amount of conspiracy and drama present in Crichton's writings, Gore does focus a few sections on politicization of science and how it hinders the conservation movement. He believes the reason powerful people and companies dislike global warming so much and are so opposed to it is because they will have to change how they live their lives dramatically and they do not want to change something that has offered them so much wealth. “The truth about the climate crisis is an inconvenient one that means we are going to have to change the way we live our lives” (Gore, 286), he states, explaining the title of his book, An Inconvenient Truth.
Gore also claims that “a few multinational companies with the most at stake have been spending many millions of dollars every year in figuring out ways of sowing public confusion about global warming” (Gore, 284). Yet this is only one way science has been hindered by the personal interests of the rich and powerful. It is difficult to do anything about the situation because politicians naturally avoid taking definite stands in any controversial issue unless the voters absolutely demand it (Gore, 286). Unfortunately, voters rarely agree unanimously, especially when scientists don't even agree the subject - leaving politicians to skirt around the issue and ultimately accomplish nothing. The political process of reform is paralyzed, because people with power do not wish to have anything intrude on their convenient lifestyles.
