Bush shouldn’t get science advice from a novelist

February 16, 2006

I appreciate the fact that novelist Michael Crichton is fairly popular, but the idea that his fiction is helping influence the president’s science policies is, as my friend Chris Mooney explained, rather disconcerting.

The LA Times’ Ron Brownstein reviewed Fred Barnes’ oddly-sycophantic new book, “Rebel-in-Chief,” and highlighted an anecdote that suggests the president’s opposition to science has been shaped, at least in part, by fiction.

Those who admire Bush will find plenty to celebrate in Barnes’ portrayal of a president who is resolute and visionary, yet humble and pious. Perhaps inadvertently, Barnes also includes plenty of evidence likely to horrify those who oppose Bush (for instance, Barnes reports that the president fundamentally doesn’t accept the theory of global warming and was reinforced in that belief by a private meeting not with any scientist but rather with novelist Michael Crichton, whose novel “State of Fear” revolves around the issue).

Mooney noted that it’s “stunning” to think the president might have gotten science advice from Crichton. I obviously agree. It’s worth adding, however, that it’s not just Bush — the president’s allies on the Hill seem to have the same problem.

In September, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and probably the most hostile member of the Senate when it comes to any kind of environmental protections, held a hearing on “the role of science in environmental policy making.”

Michael Crichton appeared as an expert witness.

Talk about celebrity worship gone awry. The science behind Crichton’s book has been debunked, repeatedly. It’s fiction. The idea that it would influence beliefs of the president and the senator who heads a committee on environmental protections speaks volumes about their discomfort with the reality-based community.

Next up, James Frey might offer Republicans advice on drug-control policies….

This administration was undoubtedly the inspiration for the word “truthiness”.

  • If that’s the kind of input they value, maybe they should convert to Scientology which was created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. Its most recently famous member is, of course, Tom Cruise who had his own widely viewed moment on Oprah’s show a while back.

    Is there a connection? Stay tuned……

  • Chricton’s connection to “reality” is pretty tenuous, especially when you remember the international political “expertise” he displayed in “Rising Sun,” the one about how the Japanese were playing us and were about to surpass us.

    He doesn’t even write good thrillers anymore, but then the only really good one was “The Andromeda Strain.” (and I say that as someone who knows professionally how you “pull the rabbit out of the hat” in writing thrillers)

  • Reminds me of the Op-Ed piece I read in the runup to the first Gulf War in the WSJ. The author was Tom Clancy and he was identified in the italic line at the bottom as a “military analyst.” God help us.

  • It’s too bad Hunter Thompson is gone. He could have been an expert on effective drug policies.
    That’s effective policies, not …. you get the idea.

  • Crichton did a couple of years research on the subject which makes him better informed than me, you, or any of the above commenters. He is probably at least as informed as Al Gore, Guru of the Left. He freely admits to cherry-picking his statistics but claims that the ones that he uses are not distorted. In short, he is at least as well informed as most Democratic National Science Advisor types.

    There are serious unexplained climate changes recorded throughout history (11th through 15th century Europe for example) that can’t possibly be the result of Greenhouse gasses caused by hair spray, refrigerants or internal combustion engines.

    The only thing that we know is that the world’s average temperature SEEMS TO have increased between 0.6 and 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 110 years. Since we have only been keeping hard verifiable records of such things in the USA and Western Europe for about 125 years that is one hell of an assumption. Worldwide, we have only been keeping uniform weather and climate data for less than sixty years. Assumption that we are changing the earth’s climate for the worse is pure conceit born of a Liberal need to feel guilty.

  • Yes, Art, all those SCIENTISTS that agree with this theory are guilt-burdened liberals, and they have a track record of ignoring evidence. Not like BushCo, Inc.
    Gosh, I’ve changed my mind about this! Thanks for the insight!

  • “He is probably at least as informed as Al Gore, Guru of the Left.” — Art K

    Is he as informed as REAL SCIENTISTS?

    You know, the ones who are studying global warming and telling us that it is happening, we are causing it, and if we don’t reduce our CO2 emmissions we are going to hit a tipping point and the seas are going to release all their stored CO2, putting us on a catestrophic slide to major climate disruption?

    But forget all that. Ask the sking venue operators in western Virginia if they enjoy losing all those ski days and thus the value of their real estate investment so that their customers can drive up their in Hummer 2’s.

    The major climate change caused by Global warming is going to destroy most of the property wealth of this country.

  • You see, I really think this is just brilliantly creative. It opens so many marvelous possibilities.

    Need an expert in drilling to send up to ANWR? Why not Louis Sachar – he wrote “Holes.”

    But it doesn’t have to be limited to just books. There are so many other artists to choose from.

    Child care policy? Well, Emma Thompson is fresh off of starring in “Nanny McPhee.”

    The entire Housing and Urban Development department can just be replaced by the broadway cast from “Rent.”

    Don Rumsfeld can finally retire to make way for. . . Beyonce Knowles! I mean, she did write and co-perform the hit song “Soldier,” so she must be an expert on the military, right?

    Indeed, we could have a cartoonist as the top policy director in the Bush White House (that hardly needs a punch line, really) – I suggest Wiley, the creator of. . . wait for it. . . “Non Sequiter.”

    I just think this has boundless potential.

  • Regarding the novelist connection, I think this is an unfair criticism. It is certainly fair to criticize the president for flauting currently held scientific opinion, but to insinuate that he’s basing that opinion on a science fiction novel is stretching the truth to lampoon the president, IMHO. There’s plenty of true stuff to ridicule Bush on, so this seems unnecessary.

    Furthermore, calling Crichton merely a novelist is misleading. He has a pretty damn good scientific background. An MD from Harvard Medical, no less. That’s a far cry from a run-of-the-mill novelist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crichton

    When we criticize things like this, it makes it sound like we think the president is wrong by definition. And so why would Republicans listen to anything we have to say if they think we’re just being contrarian?

  • “An MD from Harvard Medical, no less.” – Addison

    A medical doctor? Who is now a novelist?

    This is the knowledge base you put against climitologists?

    I’ve got a suggestion. How about we let Crichton do brain surgery on you and deliver you child by ceasarian.

    Doesn’t seem a good idea. But He’s a Doctor!

    Maybe a little specialized knowledge is important?

  • Crichton as scientist: yes, he does have an MD. Medical doctors that strictly do clinical work are not research scientists (passing organic chemistry does not count), as many Harvard MD-PhD students have told me. However, it is evident that he did some bench research, and therefore used the scientific method, as he did a post-doc at the Salk Institute starting in 1969. OK, let’s say he was a scientist. That’s fair.

    Let’s also say he also read a lot of literature research on the subject. I would still believe the opinion of a climatologist, who has spent years not only reading the literature, but also doing research in the area, over that of Crichton. Crichton does not have the scientific background necessary to make policy suggestions to the White House or be expert witness about global warming.

    Overall, I think CB’s point is basically correct – why the hell don’t the Bushites find a scientist that knows the field?

    Regarding Art K’s comments:
    “Assumption that we are changing the earth’s climate for the worse is pure conceit born of a Liberal need to feel guilty.”
    If by liberal conceit, you mean peer-reviewed scientific articles, then you are correct.

    “Greenhouse gasses caused by hair spray, refrigerants or internal combustion engines” Great thinking Art. Spectacular. Just because carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions might cause global warming, that does NOT mean that is the only possible mechanism.

    The question cannot be, “has global warming from greenhouse gases been proven?” The question should be, “is there enough evidence to alter our behavior because of the possible effects?” Considering that it is among several problems associated with use of fossil fuels, the answer is pretty clearly, yes.

    Unfortunately, the point at which it will become clear that global warming is true it will probably be too late to stop the effects. We will have to live with finding solutions to the problems. We have wasted 20 years debating global warming, mostly as an excuse to avoid conservation technologies and to spend only chump change on developing technologies for alternative energy sources (this apparently is the one area where spending money on technology doesn’t help the economy). Our energy policy has had more to do with timing the transition to those alternative technolgies so that oil companies can maintain their profits than things that actually affect citizens, like pollution, global warming, and foreign policy.

  • Bush has the National Academy of Sciences to turn to anytime he wants the best scientific advice available.

    Trouble is he’s alienated virtually all of them with his feeble attempts at sticking his clumsy thumbs where they have no business being.

  • “…but to insinuate that he’s basing that opinion on a science fiction novel is stretching the truth to lampoon the president, IMHO.” – Addison

    Crichton’s book is only the latest work of fiction that Bush has glommed onto in order to light his path through the world. There’s this other doorstop called the Bible which has no scientific credibility at all but he finds it’s malarky quite compelling.

    Shruby didn’t get his opinion on global warming’s validity from Crichton. Crichton just wrote what Shruby’s minnow mind already believed so now he is a chosen authority. Once Shruby hears what he likes, he wants to hear it again and again and….

  • CJ makes some cogent and intelligent points. Lance suggests some SCIENCE that is far weirder and less supportable than that of George W. Bush.

    The fact remains that Crichton’s scientific credentials are within the top 10% or so of the nation and the fact that he is a fiction writer does not disqualify him from having an opinion that may be valid. His book does not claim that we are not creating global warming or that it doesn’t exist. He says that we don’t have the proof.

    As to ski venue operators in West Virginia: ten bad years does not constitute global climate change.

    REAL SCIENTISTS tend overwhelmingly to produce REAL DATA that agrees with and supports the worldview of the people who are PAYING THEM. Perhaps you thought that it was just politicians who sell their services to the highest bidder?

    Crighton does not contend that Global Warming isn’t happening and neither do I. However the objective evidence that it is, and that we are causing it, is both weak and suspect.

    CJ’s last paragraph is pretty much to the point. We are clearly crapping up the environment and it’s time we stopped. The petroleum and chemical industries love debates such as this one. As long as we continue to blog our Liberal whining at each other nobody is actually holding them responsible for the mess they are creating.

    Wind power, solar power, fuel cell production, simple conservation, hydroelectric, nuclear fusion all hold promise, why aren’t we doing them? How about a maximum weight of 2,500 pounds for a passenger car with a $1 per pound annual surcharge for additional weight? How about a $100 tax on every electric hair drier? If we all get off of our asses and actually do something it WILL get better.

  • Let’s be charitable and say Chriton’s at about the top 1% of scientific minds in the US. That leaves only a couple million people more qualified. Just a couple million.

    If the government of the United states, which funds the bulk of academic research, can’t get the absolute most preeminent scientist, they should surely be able to get one of the top ten. They don’t have to settle for someone in the millionths…yet for some reason they chose to. That’s the point.

  • There’s a lot of criticism of Chricton for just doing what we would all do in his place…make a lot of money of the public. Yes, he probably did research. Yes, he is an educated person capable of researching more than his own specialty of medicine.

    But he’s not an expert in the field. He probably hasn’t even claimed to be. The more he shows up at these things, the more people will buy his books. So he’s bought into the consumerist dogma of “I must make a lot of money to be happy.” Big deal. We all do.

    Blame Bush. He’s an incompetent and arrogant fiend who’s blundered so many things, it just hurts to watch now. Oh, and don’t expect him to understand the complexity of climate change because if you think a cell is a human being, you’re definitely not going to figure out that an environmental catastrophe that kills millions is on the brink. Think Katrina times 10.

    • Comments are closed.