From the Executive Director
The politics of science
If you have ever studied political science,
then you know that it is all about methods and tactics used to
advance issues and agendas. Sometimes the public views these methods
as opportunistic and unprincipled. However you view politics,
the fact remains that politics are a fact of life in today's society.
For the last 7 years, I have attended countless meetings discussing
a wide range of animal and public health issues. Increasingly,
I have observed the role that politics have come to play in science.
Perhaps this has always been true to some extent, but it seems
as though the intensity of the politics has been cranked up a
notch or two. No longer can we be comforted by the thought that
science will prevail. We can no longer ignore the politics of
science.
A perfect example of politics in science is the issue of whether
antibiotics should be used in food animals. Much of this issue
is centered on the impact that antibiotic use in food animals
has on antimicrobial resistance in humans. The opponents of animal
agriculture are searching for the "smoking gun" science
that proves that such use presents a risk to public health.
A recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained
three papers that all related to the issue of antibiotic use in
animals and the potential risk to humans. Conveniently, the same
issue contained an editorial from a physician declaring that the
proverbial "smoking gun" had now been found. The editorialist
went on to say that the use of antimicrobials in food animals
should be limited to individual treatment, that the use of "important"
drugs (such as fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins)
should be prohibited in food-producing animals, and that growth
promotants should be banned.
In the world of publishing, there are no coincidences. The
printing of scientific papers requires careful planning and scheduling.
The New England Journal of Medicine left no doubt that the politics
of science sometimes transcends the science itself. The questionable
use of a scientific journal to advance a political agenda diminishes
the science. This tactic even raises questions about the integrity
of the publication. This would be harder to say if the published
science was definitive and above reproach, but, upon critical
review, it is clear that none of these three scientific reports
even comes close to providing the "smoking gun" that
some are so desperately seeking.
Antimicrobial resistance is not the only issue in which the
politics of science have come into play, nor will it be the last.
The challenge for AASV is to continue to demand sound, defensible
science and appropriate application of the information. Over-reaching
conclusions that are aimed more at politics than advancing the
state of knowledge should be discounted as such. Vigilance is
needed to ensure that the data and statistical analysis support
the conclusions.
To be fair, however, veterinarians should not point fingers
at others without some introspective "self-examination"
of veterinary medicine. Are we guilty of playing politics with
science? There are pitfalls within any profession and ours is
no different. Are veterinarians using the best available science?
How often do we opine that the "art" of practice takes
up where the science leaves off? Are we too quick to invoke this
stance so that science can be ignored? Are there aspects of our
practices that we would be hard pressed to defend on the basis
of science?
As veterinarians, we have our roots in science. The legitimate
use of good scientific information may have a justifiable role
in the setting of policy at any level, whether locally on the
farm or in the regulatory and legislative environment of Washington,
DC. The required components of legitimate scientific knowledge
have not changed. What has changed is the motivation of some to
misuse and misrepresent science as a means to further a political
agenda. It is up to us to hold ourselves and others accountable
for the science used to set policies. If we abdicate that responsibility,
then we allow the politics to overcome the science.
Tom Burkgren
|
