Ian Gibson is not impressed with Sarah Palin’s science
 
During the 2006 campaign for Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin was asked about teaching creationism in schools. ‘Teach both’, the Anchorage Daily News quoted her as replying. ‘You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.’

We will know by the time of publication if there is a real possibility that, in the next few years, Sarah Palin could become President of the United States. 

Creationism

Those of us with a greater knowledge and understanding of science are aware that there is no debate. The truly worrying indication here is that Palin fails to recognise that creationism or intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Creationism is no more a theory than the theory that every time one closes the sock draw mysterious gnomes appear and steal one’s socks. Although the ‘gnome theory’ does explain a few things, it would be absurd to teach it in a classroom.

It becomes more disturbing to find that government policies have allowed creationists to own our schools and set the curriculum through the city academies programme. Even the Royal Society has had to accept the resignation of a senior professional appointment to one of its committees. Great Britain along with many parts of the States is facing a creationist onslaught.

Climate change

We have concern too when we consider that the greatest threat our planet faces is global climate change. Our only hope in the face of climate change is global cooperation to address the way we live and interact with the planet.

So what does Palin think about climate change?

‘I believe in science,’ Mrs Palin told the ABC Network after she had received the Republican nomination for Vice President. Yet just last year as Governor of Alaska, she told Fair Banks Daily News: ‘I’m not an Al Gore doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity.’

Mrs Palin’s stated policy is to increase American production of oil and gas. At the Republican Convention this summer, she promised that ‘starting in January, a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines.’ However, her expertise in this area is as wanting, and amounts to justifying her stance with: ‘Take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we’ve got lots of both.’

Polar bears

Palin is currently suing the Bush Administration over its decision to award polar bears ‘threatened status’ under the Endangered Species Act. Palin is undertaking the law suit on the basis the threatened status will ‘deter activities such as… oil and gas exploration and development’. The decision to award polar bears threatened status was made on the back of studies submitted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. They found that Artic sea ice, the bear’s natural habitat, fell to its lowest level ever recorded by satellite in the year 2005-06 (1).

Palin then commissioned ‘scientific research’ of her own. Palin’s paper, Polar Bears of Western Hudson Bay and Climate Change came up with starkly different conclusions from the US government. On closer examination of those involved in the paper, this is not surprising. The Guardian reported this month that three of the seven academics that contributed to the paper have directly or indirectly been funded by Exxon Mobil, and another by the American Petroleum Institute.

Ironically, Palin ran for Governor on an anti¬corruption ticker. She even resigned from the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in protest at what she described as the corruption of fellow Republicans. Yet now, through her oil-funded pseudo science, she is advocating policies which will have a devastating effect on endangered species and on climate change if the oil companies are allowed to drill in Alaska. 

Biology

When it comes to biological and medical science, Palin fares no better. She totally opposes abortion under any circumstances, including rape and forced incest.

Her staunch pro-life stance also rules out the possibility of support for embryonic stem cell research. The debate in the UK before the summer demonstrated we must not rule out embryonic or adult cell sources to produce stem cells up until 14 days. It looks likely that hybrid animal/human cell mixtures will be strictly regulated.

I expect to see a more pro-science platform among UK politicians, but the dangers are there. Just look at the debate on mixed embryos and abortion. Scientists need to engage more proactively with the public and not just a few politicians.

Reference

1. US Fish and Wildlife Service – press release on polar bears 14 May 2008

Dr Ian Gibson is MP for Norwich North