Abstract
Objectivity is a central tenet of the scientific method. But there's no rule against scientists being passionate about their findings.
Such is the case of Sir David King, the chief scientific adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In this issue of the Bulletin, Jonathan Leake, the science and environment editor at The Sunday Times of London, profiles King and recounts how his “evidence-led logical approach” has long compelled him to take a public stand on issues–first as an opponent of the apartheid system in South Africa, then as an advocate of draconian public health measures in Britain, and most recently, as a tireless campaigner on the need to confront climate change. That issue has turned King into a controversial figure among U.S. conservatives who are dismissive of climate change and among environmental groups who balk at King's suggestion that nuclear power should be at least part of the solution. King's message is simple, writes Leake, “The world is changing fast, and if humanity wants to preserve itself, let alone Earth, it better act fast and consider all options, no matter the preconceived notions.”
Meanwhile, John Mueller, who holds the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at Ohio State University, argues that widespread fear has rendered U.S. society incapable of objectively addressing the threat of terrorism. In particular, he takes issue with oft-repeated predictions that future terrorist attacks could destroy Western civilization by provoking a backlash against democratic governance and civil liberties. “All societies are vulnerable to tiny bands of suicidal fanatics because it is impossible to prevent every terrorist act,” Mueller acknowledges. “But the United States is hardly vulnerable to being toppled by dramatic acts of terrorist destruction–even extreme ones. To hold otherwise is to express contempt for Americans' capacity to deal with adversity.”
Mueller counsels less fear-mongering and more focus on practical measures to safeguard U.S. security–notably, efforts to limit the development and spread of nuclear weapons. To that end, the U.S. government has sought to harness the knowledge of scientists working at the nation's weapons labs. The expertise that gave birth to the Bomb is helping to secure nuclear weapons and materials worldwide. But, as the Council on Foreign Relations' Charles D. Ferguson and Lisa Obrentz observe, the labs are also being tasked with developing a new generation of warheads for the U.S. arsenal–prompting concerns that weapons work “compromises the integrity” of nonproliferation efforts and “diverts resources from halting the spread of nuclear weapons.” What's badly missing within the weapons complex is an objective analysis of whether our nuclear arsenal will always be needed for U.S. security.