MONDAY

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Mr. Mooney's official site
• Excerpt from The Republican War on Science
• Seed magazine

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Chris Mooney is a journalist specializing in areas of science and politics. He is the Washington correspondent for 'Seed' magazine and has contributed to 'The Washington Post,' 'Slate' and 'Wired.' His first book is called "The Republican War on Science" which is as provocative as it sounds. Chris Mooney joins us tonight from Washington. Chris, nice to have you on the program.

Chris Mooney: It's great to be here. Thanks.

Tavis: So you didn't hold back on your first book. You couldn't find anything easier to write about (laughter)?

Mooney: I'm afraid not. We have a real problem right now with science and politics.

Tavis: Tell me, to your point, about this issue we have with science and politics, why you think that there is a war on science and why you believe that the Republicans are leading this war on science.

Mooney: Sure. Well, what we're seeing is pretty systematic attacks on scientific information and political misuses of science throughout the government, in Congress and even at the state level, with the attacks on evolution and I think that there's a political explanation for all this. The Republican Party, which is running both Congress and the Executive Branch, is appealing to its constituencies, so big business wants to attack science in areas like global warming and then the religious conservatives want to attack science in areas like evolution. Sure enough, that's where all the fights are actually breaking out.

Tavis: Tell me what the primary - you've just listed one or two of them right now - but tell me what the primary issues are where this war - the primary issues this war is being fought around.

Mooney: Sure. Well, evolution is clearly one of the biggest ones always in the news. Global warming is not going to go away. It's affecting the whole planet. There are some others like embryonic stem cell research would be a good example as well.

Tavis: What is the intention of those leading this war? I mean, if you're in war, you're in war I assume because you're trying to win something. So what's the game plan here?

Mooney: I think the game plan here is to attack and undermine information that people don't like for political or ideological reasons, and the political or ideological reasons vary. So with something like global warming, the reason that the information is being attacked is because people do not want to see political action to curtail our emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. With something like evolution, it's very different. People think that evolution is threatening their religious beliefs when it's being taught to children, so that's why they're attacking it.

Tavis: You make an interesting distinction here now, Chris, so I want to ask you why it is that you believe that there is a political agenda here rather than someone just having issues ideologically on these fronts?

Mooney: Well, it's a political agenda because this is how the Republican Party is staying in power. It's appealing to its constituencies. That's inherently political behavior. So industry helps keep this party in power. Religious conservatives - they're the base, they're the grassroots - they help keep this party in power. The attacks on science are coming from them, but they're being reflected by the politicians because the politicians are doing what their constituents want.

Tavis: Tell me how this war affects our politics? That is to say, American politics at the moment.

Mooney: Sure. Well, I'm a believer that, if we have good scientific information, we're at least somewhat more likely to make good political decisions in the long run. What really disturbs me so much about this is that, if the information is being distorted and undermined, then I'm afraid we're not going to have the right kind of political decisions and I think that this is going to damage our future when it comes to the environment and public health. Even our respect for knowledge itself, I think, is being undermined.

Tavis: So Democrats are not at all guilty here? This is exclusively Republican domain?

Mooney: Oh, no. I don't mean to say that. I think that, you know, to some extent everyone tries to cherry-pick scientific information to back up a particular point of view. I think that what we have is a systematic problem right now with this administration. But there are certainly some case studies from Democrats as well. We could talk about those if you'd like.

Tavis: Please, go ahead.

Mooney: Sure. Well, I think that, during the 2004 presidential campaign, John Edwards really overstepped his bounds when he implied that, you know, if people vote for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, he said something to the effect that people like Christopher Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again because the Kerry campaign supports embryonic stem cell research. You know, he's promising cures to a specific disease and you can't promise that at this stage in time when the science is not really that well developed in this area. So I think that that's clearly a political misuse of science by a Democrat. So it happens.

Tavis: Tell me why it is that, as a journalist rather than a scientist, you felt that you had whatever it takes to write a book like this?

Mooney: Sure. Well, someone had to pull together all the different issues. There are scientists who know a lot about global warming. They're very different from the scientists who study evolution. And someone also had to provide a political explanation. I happen to be a political journalist who's also done a lot of science reporting, so it was really kind of the ideal combination for me. It's also the case that scientists get really outraged about this stuff, but they're not necessarily well trained in political communication or in expressing (laughter) their ideas very succinctly. So it needed someone like me, I think.

Tavis: Are there Republicans who get good grades from Chris Mooney where this issue is concerned, number one? And number two, how are they treated or maltreated, as it were, by other Republicans?

Mooney: Yes. I don't mean to say that every single Republican is responsible. I think that the majority of the party is really part of the moderate conservative movement and I think that's what's compelling this. There are clearly exceptions. I think someone like Senator John McCain has really been wonderful on the science of global warming. We have the Chair of the House Science Committee, Sherwood Boehlert, as a moderate Republican. He has a very good record. So it's certainly not everybody, but I do think that it's the leaders of the party.

Tavis: You go after one particular senator where environmental issues are concerned. Share with me.

Mooney: Well, Senator Inhofe, I think, has really been outrageous in his statements to the effect that global warming - he's implied that it is a hoax that's being perpetrated against the American people, and that's just completely beyond the pale. The science here is getting stronger and stronger every day. In fact, we're not even debating whether it's happening anymore. Now we're starting to discuss the impacts. You know, the melting of ice in the Arctic. Are hurricanes getting stronger? Is sea level rising? You know, there's almost no debate anymore.

Tavis: Back to something you raised earlier. If in fact this war, this attack on science, continues as you see it, how does this ultimately impact the American public? If a senator stands up, for example, and says that global warming is a hoax and the signs are everywhere that, you know, you ain't got to be a rocket scientist to know that these issues are very real. But if a senator or senators continue to perpetrate that particular agenda, how does that ultimately impact the American people?

Mooney: Well, first it misinforms us. It puts out misinformation. It confuses people and it makes us generally less informed as a public or as a population. But it also contributes to political inaction by creating confusion about what the basic facts are so that policymakers can't actually come to common ground about what the solutions would be. So I think that, in both of those ways, it hurts the American people.

I also think that it's undermining the credibility of our very government itself because you have all these agencies of the Bush administration that have now been very credibly accused of misusing or distorting science, so can we even trust them to level with the American public about science anymore? I'm not sure that we can.

Tavis: You grew up in New Orleans and this might seem like a disconnect, but it in fact is not a disconnect at all. You grew up in New Orleans and there are all kinds of scientific issues that arose out of Hurricane Katrina, issues of science that were ignored in fact before Katrina hit. Talk to me about science and Hurricane Katrina and your hometown of New Orleans.

Mooney: Right. Well, unfortunately, before the hurricane hit, a lot of scientists and engineers had been discussing the vulnerability of New Orleans. It should have been obvious that this is a place that's below sea level and they talked about what they called the Atlantis scenario, of this city being swamped with sea water driven by a storm surge of a hurricane. Unfortunately, this just did not translate into any political action.

This is not one where I blame Republicans alone. I blame Republicans, Democrats, local leaders, everyone who was just sort of ignoring it and hoping, I guess, that it would go away. So, unfortunately, science was ignored and vulnerabilities were not addressed. What really bothers me is I'm afraid we're going to do the same thing again if we only build back those levies to Category Three. You know, what happens when a storm stronger than Katrina comes along?

Tavis: I was about to ask you whether or not you think that there are any lessons learned out of this, lessons learned that might change the behavior of these elected officials we've been talking about, in the coming days, weeks and months.

Mooney: Sure. Well, I would hope that they would be much more responsive to the scientists who are able to use very sophisticated computer models to project if a hurricane hits this way, the water's going to come in this high, you know, and this is how strong the hurricane can get, so we need to build the defenses this high. I'm not hearing enough of that, you know.

People seem to be talking like the levies are only going to be built back to the strength of Katrina. We know that there are many storms that could hit that would be stronger than Katrina or that would hit at a different angle that would be worse because Katrina actually missed the city. You know, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Are we going to set ourselves up in a position where the same thing could happen again?

Tavis: Let me ask you, Chris, whether or not it is your sense where these science issues are concerned that we can, again in the coming months and years, properly contextualize these conversations, indeed these debates, around these issues, or is it your sense to the contrary that the politics around science is going to get worse?

Mooney: Well, I'm not sure. I mean, you know, I think that we can strive in order to explain the science properly. I think scientists have an important role here, you know. They need to be better communicators. They need to break down their ideas for the public. But also the policymakers need to stop ignoring the information and they really need to stop twisting it to support their own political ends. You know, I'm not sure about the future. I think that the Republican Party could go in a different direction where these problems will become less acute, so that would be a really great outcome, in my opinion, and that's what I'm pushing for.

Tavis: Well, he stepped right into it in his first book. It's called "The Republican War on Science" written by one Chris Mooney. Chris, nice to have you on the program. All the best to you.

Mooney: It's great to talk to you.

Tavis: Thank you, sir. We'll be right back. Stay with us.