It's an old question, but seems particularly relevant again. This question is specifically in reference to another about the upcoming scientist march. It was stated by someone: "If global warming scientists march against Trump that will confirm what people have been saying all along: It is politics and...
-------------------------------------------------------
answers:
say: If scientists and science itself are under unrelenting attack by dedicated political liars who dominate the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government, then there can be little question in the mind of any honest, concerned and informed citizen.
It is only an issue of how to fight back, and who should lead the fighting, not whether to fight back.
If the minority party is in the hands of the biggest group of political cowards in recent human history, and the mainstream news media have for years been dumbing down trying to compete with attention deficit disorder social media, that further reduces the alternatives to scientists becoming political advocates in order to protect science, knowledge, truth and democracy itself.
Should scientists be political advocates as a first resort? NO
As a last resort? Yes
-
wereq say: Personally I don't believe there should be anyone in politics who doesn't at least have a STEM degree. All these religious nuts are holding us back. We don't need snake-*** lawyers making up laws without understanding the ramifications. We need people who understand the ramifications. Even a 5 year old can basically agree murder is wrong, nobody needs a law degree for that. Building a wind farm in the middle of a major bird migratory path? Who's going to know more... the scientist studying the birds or some jackhole early lobbying so they can get a kickback after their term is up and don't get re-elected? Jee.... real tough one there.
-