The science March is coming up, and the climate March.
And It's really great that scientists are mobilizing, and feeling good &
rallying together
BUT
This whole science March is got me wondering if we’re doing the right thing, I mean,
is protesting the effective thing for us all to be doing?
Are we just preaching to the converted?
Or are we making the situation actually worse, making science more of a political issue than
it already is.
[SCIQ INTRO]
The March is great - don’t get me wrong, I 100% think that it’s awesome that scientists
having their voices heard.
but I think if we want to make actual change, then we need to do more than just march the
streets, and sign petitions - even though those things make us feel like we are doing
something, it makes us feelgood.
So I was thinking - in the real world - change seems to happen in three ways
1.
Money (PAC) We all want to get money out of politics,
I know, but it’s there, so let’ s not pretend it’s not the reality - money rules
the system.
And Everyone knows what PACs are – Political Action Committees that essentially raise money
for a political campaign –A SUPER PAC for science would give us the ability to raise
funds without any legal limit on donation size, and then run unlimited political spending
in support of any candidate or candidates, that we chose.
So imagine if we had a Science Super PAC that throws its money behind candidates who stand
up for science.
There’s already PACs for the Environment, like Ocean Champions which donates thousands
of dollars to Congress People who support ocean protection.
But there’s soooo much money in science that we could be using for this purpose.
There is private money, there is institutional money, just think of all the cash in biotech
firms, or at Harvard’s research facilities.
If they gave just one tenth of 1% of that money to a Science Super PAC, you’d have
a really powerful pot of money to help get the right people elected.
And I’m not just talking about getting scientists elected, although that’s important and I
will talk about in point number 3.
There’s also so many science-friendly government people already sitting in congress or in the
state or local councils that need our support.
And the support of the science community.
and One of those is Ben Kallos, who came on ScIQ and talked about how he uses the scientific
method to make policy decisions.
He’s not a scientist, but he’s the type of guy that we need to get re-elected.
Having more people like Ben Kallos in government means scientists can spend less time protesting
and more time pipetting!
2.
Lobby Group (AAAS)
If an oil company wants something, they hire lobbyists to go to congress and talk to politicians
until they get what they want.
But scientists don’t really do lobbying much at all, even though we have giant chunks
of public money that we apparently need to be defended at the moment.
We just kinda take out public funding for granted, and assume that every year Taxpayers
are just gonna be happy to give us 3% of all that tax revenue.
No, we need to hire lobbyists to defend that income.
And those lobbyists would have a huge bargaining chip, when they go to capitol Hill.
Because scientists and engineers make up around 5% of the US population, there’s over 6
million voters, who are scientist employed in the US right now.
Imagine if they organized themselves into a union and voted as a block.
That’s 6 million votes, how incredibly powerful that would be.
Imagine sending a lobbyist to Congress and being able to say, look, you can support Alternate
Facts if you like, but me and my 6 million voters will be making sure you never get elected
again.
And Since we’re talking about lobbying, why not build a scientists union?
Imagine how much of a bargaining chip that would be for our lobbyist!
We have the Union of Concerned Scientist, but they’re specifically an environmental
and antinuclear group.
Imagine if you had a science trade union.
And if you don’t think unions can make a difference, remember that The National Nurses
Union helped fund and run Bernie Sanders campaign , and they had less than 200,000 people!
We have 6 million!
Where was the science union supporting Bernie?
And we wonder why Climate Change never got asked about in the debates.
So we need to hire lobbyists.
3.
Scientists need to run for office.
It’s super ballsey to give up your career and run for office, especially science science
and politics don’t often go well together.
But scientists can make great representatives.
There’s already a group called 314 dedicated to getting more scientists to run for government,
at all levels, not just in federal congress.
Scientists are super needed at the state level and ithe local governments too.
Rush Holt is a great example of the scientist congressman, he started out as a physics researcher
at Princeton and ended up serving in congress for 16 years - and he is now the head of the
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), where he’s busily encouraging
the science community to speak up, which is awesome
So we need scientists to run for office.
So when April 22nd comes, I’ll be there, I’ll be Marching for Science.
You should too.
But I also hope that all those awesome supporters don’t just stop after the March is over.
If we really want to be effective at changing the political game, of speaking up for science,
we need to organize.
We need to raise money, we need to build lobby groups, and we need to run for office.
Otherwise the this March is open for nothing.
What do you think, ScIQ viewers?
Would you be willing to put money into a science pac?
Or would you become one of a members of a science union?
Or maybe you you want to run for office yourself?
Let us know in the comments below!
HI everyone!
I'm Jayde Lovell, resident science nerd at the Young Turks Network.
You're watching SciQ, and we know you don't want to miss an episode, so click the subscribe
button down below.