[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16023-16024]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           THE WAR ON SCIENCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the growing 
antiscience attitude in Washington. This attitude has manifested itself 
even on the cover of the respected National Geographic magazine, titled 
``The War on Science.'' The war on science is being conducted in two 
ways. First, by rejecting or trying to discredit legitimate science. 
Second, by reducing Federal science funding.
  Skepticism of science is hardly new and is sometimes well founded, 
but what is happening today is different and is part of a trend in the 
United States to discount or disbelieve experts in any field. I hear 
from scientists who are very worried that the quality and quantity of 
science produced in this country will decline as a result.
  American inventors and innovators have improved our lives and have 
given our country an economic edge, helping

[[Page 16024]]

make us the strongest country in the world. Let me share a partial list 
of revolutionary achievements by American scientists: airplanes, 
phonographs, practical incandescent lamps, wireless communications, 
microwave ovens, lasers, personal computers, washing machines, 
cyclotrons, 3D printing machines, polio vaccinations, the nuclear bomb, 
light-emitting diodes or LEDs, fiber optic cables, mobile telephones, 
computer mouse, public key cryptography, global positioning systems or 
GPS, and social media.
  Now let's recall an earlier battle against science that used the 
discredit tactic; namely, the tobacco companies' effort to dispute the 
science that smoking is addictive and causes deadly diseases. The 
tobacco industry tried to both discredit and threaten the scientists 
who were advancing the facts, and funded questionable scientists to 
create doubts about the actual scientific results. The tactic worked 
for a time while tobacco producers were able to continually hook 
millions of new people on their dangerous product. Eventually the 
science won out, but the cost was terrible.
  Today a similar effort is underway with respect to climate change. 
The science is clear, with a vast majority of climate scientists 
agreeing that the climate is warming and that continuing to emit carbon 
into the atmosphere at current levels will bring significant and mostly 
detrimental change to our environment. Moreover, even though the 
evidence that climate change is already taking place and is 
overwhelming and increasingly obvious, there is widespread denial that 
climate change is even happening or that it would be possible to help 
combat it. But the things that need to be done to address climate 
change, such as taxing carbon emissions, can be done gradually, 
predictably, and in a way that helps the economy grow and puts people 
to work.
  So why is there so much resistance?
  The resistance in America is caused by a well-funded campaign to 
create doubt about obvious scientific facts. The fossil fuel industry, 
in particular, has been paying its own scientists to go on talk shows, 
to publish in their own denial journals, and generally to create doubt 
whenever possible about climate change, suggesting that it would be 
better to wait for conclusive evidence before doing anything. But to 
wait for conclusive evidence is to wait for catastrophe.
  While Republicans in Washington are trying to reduce or eliminate 
funding for climate change research, there also seems to be an effort 
by Republicans to reduce science funding across the board. This will 
result in fewer scientific advances in the U.S., which will likely 
cause us to fall behind our competitors. But this is part of a larger 
trend that denies there are real experts. Science denial has become a 
pop culture. This is dangerous because modern society is built upon the 
things that science got right.
  I see the war on science in this country as shortsighted and very 
damaging to our economy. We need to change the tone and direction 
toward a positive process that acknowledges and supports the role 
science has played and will continue to play for our country. That 
means working with legislators and getting more scientists and other 
concerned citizens involved in the political process to ensure that our 
Nation can continue to benefit from new scientific discoveries and 
innovation and which will help create the jobs we need to continue to 
be a great economic power.

                          ____________________