Now before I start, let me be honest. There have always been, and always will be, those who will instinctively disavow science. For some it's a matter of fear ("That appears to threaten my world view and scares me"). For others it's simple ignorance ("That doesn't easily make sense to me, so I don't believe it"). But for a few it is really more a matter of power ("By minimizing science and its scope, I can act how I want regardless of what evidence there is that I shouldn't.")
The first two groups I can understand and even empathize with. It's our nature to be cautious and skeptical. Hell, as a scientist I'm trained to be skeptical and to wait for mounting evidence to make the case that I should reject my current beliefs. However, usually those who dislike science out of fear or ignorance can be reasoned with if approached in the right way. Remember that even Pope John Paul II, a man who lead an institution that was terrified of the concept of evolution, eventually conceded that it exists.
It is that third group of science denier terrifies me. And that brings me to what started this whole post. Check out this clip of Presidential candidate Rick Santorum speaking to a law school audience last week.
Let's listen very carefully to what Mr. Santorum says. First he appeals to authority" "Because I believe what the Catholic church teaches with respect to homosexuality" he therefore should be allowed to hold his beliefs that same-sex couples should not have equal rights in terms of marriage and adoption. Now if it were just a personal belief that would be fine. We all have to appeal to authority at some point in order to have baseline assumptions with which to act in the world. But when faced with new evidence that those assumptions are incorrect, a logical person would change the assumption. Mr. Santorum inherently acknowledges this fact when he goes on to say that there is no evidence to refute his "bigoted" beliefs.
But now listen to what Mr. Santorum says when confronted with two critical pieces of information that there is, in fact, evidence to refute his assumptions. First the fact that the American Psychiatric Association (not the American Psychological Association as stated in the video, although they take the same stance) delisted homosexuality as a mental illness in the DSM-III in1974. This, by the way, was after numerous empirical studies showing that, in all other aspects, homosexuals had no other presenting symptoms or negative life outcomes than heterosexual individuals. Second, the fact that there is overwhelming peer-reviewed research by behavioral scientists that children growing up in same-sex households are no different, in terms of mental health and emotional well-being, than those who grow up with heterosexual parents.
Mr. Santorum replies "The American Psychological Association is made up of people who agree with the American Psychological Association." He then follows up with this gem, "A lot of psychologists don't belong to the American Psychological Association. A lot of doctors don't belong to the American Medical Association."
Now keep in mind this is a serious (albeit unlikely) candidate for the GOP nomination. He's a trained lawyer and served in Congress both as a Representative and a Senator. So he should, by all accounts, be a very bright and logical man. Yet his response to just the existence of scientific evidence refuting his beliefs is the same as that taken by the lunatic anti-science fringe: if you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
As a scientist, I'd be fine if Mr. Santorum argued with the science itself. Every study and every field has its weaknesses. Had he argued that showing a lack of a difference is not the same thing as there not being a difference, he'd actually be correct. In science, we call it "arguing the null." Had he said that the research was still preliminary because the children adopted by homosexual couples are just now reaching adulthood, that would also be a valid and reasoned response.
But that wasn't Mr. Santorum's reaction. This initial reaction reveals something far deeper than a simple lack of understanding of the issue. It shows a complete and utter lack of respect for the science being discussed. In fact, he turned the appeal to authority on it's head. It's okay for Mr. Santorum to hate homosexuality because the Catholic church says so, but it's not okay for scientists in the APA to feel that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality because they're just preaching to the choir. Do you see that Catch-22?
If Mr. Santorum were the only major politician to act this way toward science, I could let it slide. He'd be annoying but not threatening. Unfortunately this is the rule these days and not the exception. For many politicians, as well as media personalities and a growing minority of the U.S. population, refuting a scientific fact outright because scientists say it is a badge of honor. It's something to brag about. In fact, we live in a world where most of the contenders for a major political party's presidential nomination don't believe in evolution or global climate change. Both of which have thousands (that's right.. thousands!) of empirical publications supporting them.
And that brings us back to the motive. As I mentioned before, Mr. Santorum has to be a smart and logical man in order to get as far as he did. The same is true for the other leaders who instinctively attack science as a whole (with the exception of Mrs. Bachmann who's a whole other kind of crazy). I'm afraid, their attack comes from a need for power. "I can ignore the research on homosexuality and evolution because I want to court the religious vote." "I can ignore the evidence of climate change because I want to court the industries who it will affect."
Unfortunately, this is an endgame move in the debate. There's nothing you as a scientist can say or do that will change their beliefs because their ignorance is a source of power. Arguing with those who take this stance is like arguing with the three year old holding his fingers in his ears... you just have to wait until they grow up so you can talk to them like an adult.
Update: As if on cue, last night's GOP primary debate featured Rick Perry demonstrating my point perfectly. "Just because you have a group of scientists standing up and saying 'Here are the facts'... Galileo got outvoted for a spell." The important point being distorted by Mr. Perry is that Galileo was not outvoted by his scientific peers... he was outvoted by the Catholic Church. His "natural philosophy" peers respected and built off of his work. In fact, by taking such a stance against the empirical findings, Mr. Perry is putting himself in the same boat as those who "outvoted" Galileo.