Buzz
Science encompasses far more than just lab-coated individuals performing experiments. The process of scientific research is both time-consuming and costly, and scientists are continually seeking grants and other funding sources. Unfortunately, much of this financial support comes from government bodies, which can sometimes create obstacles. Politicians, often loud and self-assured, tend to make decisions based on what will garner public approval or what special interests advise. As a result, it's no surprise that political dynamics, both in the United States and globally, frequently delay scientific progress.
10. Promoting Scientific Ignorance Among the Public
The U.S. educational system ranks poorly globally, particularly in science and mathematics. American students typically perform at an average level in these subjects, with smaller and less affluent nations outpacing the U.S. in both. This lackluster performance not only makes it harder to cultivate future scientists and engineers, but it also fosters scientific ignorance. Such ignorance can lead people to accept false or even hazardous beliefs, such as the notion that cell phones cause brain cancer or that vaccines trigger autism.
Politicians may view this as an opportunity to boost funding for education and bring better teachers into schools, but instead, they are making decisions that undermine scientific progress. Science education has become a political battleground, with groups using it to push specific agendas, especially those promoting creationism or denying global warming. In Tennessee, a 2012 law permits teachers to present students with alternative views to established scientific principles (such as evolution and climate change) without facing consequences for straying from the official curriculum. Louisiana passed a similar law earlier, and in at least 10 states, private schools can teach creationism with public funds. There's no question that students graduating from these schools will have a far weaker understanding of science compared to the average American.
9. Creating Barriers to Internet Access
Internet service in the U.S. is infamously poor. The country ranks 31st globally in terms of download speed, placing it behind much smaller and less wealthy nations. The structure of Internet service regulation in the U.S. means that most commercial Internet service providers (ISPs) hold monopolies in their service areas, with little competition or incentive to improve outdated services. This situation contrasts with countries like South Korea, where competition drives ISPs to provide faster and cheaper options.
In response to this, some towns have taken matters into their own hands by creating their own community broadband networks. Over 400 communities across the U.S. have invested in building their own telecommunications networks, offering affordable high-speed Internet to local residents. Google is also stepping in with its Google Fiber project, which aims to connect users via gigabit Ethernet.
Seeing the growing threat of competition, commercial ISPs have launched a counterattack and persuaded 20 states to pass laws restricting community broadband efforts. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, for instance, a community broadband network is already in place, but a new state law prevents it from expanding. Although the Federal Communications Commission has the authority to override such laws, no action has been taken so far.
8. Rejecting Progress on Gun Control
The tragic events of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting reignited the national conversation on gun control in the U.S. One potential game-changer in this debate is the smart gun, though it remains absent from the market.
Smart guns integrate advanced technology, such as RFID chips or biometric sensors, to ensure that only the registered owner can fire the weapon. The hope is that this innovation will help limit unauthorized access to firearms, reduce firearm-related accidents and suicides, and prevent mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook.
The availability of smart guns has been blocked due to an unusual legal scenario. In 2002, New Jersey passed a law that mandates once smart guns are available anywhere in the U.S., all firearms sold in New Jersey must be smart guns. This law has created a backlash from manufacturers and sellers, who have faced threats, fearing the law would disrupt the New Jersey gun market by making it illegal to sell non-smart guns. As a result, smart guns remain unavailable for purchase in the U.S., even for those who are interested in them.
7. Stalling the Progress of Electric Cars
Electric cars have actually been in existence for many years, but their widespread development and adoption has been slow. Efforts to create a commercial electric vehicle date back to the 1970s, and there was also the enigmatic case of the EV-1 in the early 2000s.
Recently, with growing concerns over gas prices, fuel shortages, and environmental issues, interest in electric vehicles has gained momentum (or should we say, current?). Tesla Motors has been at the forefront, with its Model S earning the title of Best Car of 2014 by Consumer Reports.
Tesla is facing challenges in getting its vehicles into the hands of consumers. The company aims to sell directly to drivers, bypassing the traditional car dealership model. However, in many states, this is prohibited due to “dealer franchise laws.” These laws mandate that cars must be sold through independent dealers. While some states already had these laws, others have targeted Tesla by passing new franchise laws. New Jersey, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, and Texas are among the states that have made it more difficult for consumers to access these revolutionary electric cars.
6. Prohibiting Human Cloning
Cloning is a common theme in science fiction, and it's no surprise that scientists have long explored ways to replicate organs. However, the concept of cloning remains a controversial topic among politicians. While therapeutic cloning holds exciting possibilities for scientists, the ethical and emotional reactions to human cloning fuel much of the public debate.
In the 1970s, a book by David Rorvik claimed that a group of secretive scientists had successfully cloned a wealthy businessman. Though the book was almost certainly a hoax, it ignited a media debate about the ethics of cloning.
Two decades after the cloning of Dolly the Sheep, scientists were thrilled by the potential of therapeutic cloning, which could offer ways to study diseases or even grow human organs for transplants. However, ethical concerns soon arose—what if the technology advanced to the point of cloning humans? Could individuals be cloned without their consent, or would cloning facilities be reserved only for the healthiest and most intelligent people? In response, some countries, such as England, took the step of banning human cloning altogether. The fear surrounding human cloning is so significant that the United Nations has even taken a stance against it.
A few years ago, the debate over cloning flared up once again when a group known as the Raelians claimed to have successfully cloned a human being. Though they provided no concrete evidence, their announcement sparked a media frenzy. Concerned lawmakers, such as Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas, introduced legislation that would have imposed a nationwide ban on cloning, potentially restricting the use of cloning technology for therapeutic purposes as well.
5. Interfering with the Internet
Politicians have always had a complicated relationship with the Internet. While it provides us with unparalleled access to information and communication, it also raises concerns among politicians who view it as equally capable of causing harm as it is of doing good.
Politicians have long sought to control the Internet and may never cease trying. A recent attempt was the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which generated significant backlash. SOPA aimed to combat online piracy by preventing search engines from indexing so-called “offending” websites. Critics of the law, however, argued that it amounted to censorship, as it would allow any website to be removed from search engines, effectively making them nearly impossible for most people to access.
The Internet successfully united against SOPA, but in its aftermath came CISPA, a variation on the same idea. At the same time, some European nations tried to implement a “three strikes” law, which would permanently disconnect users from the Internet after receiving three copyright infringement notices. Additionally, the European Union is pressuring Google to remove certain search results.
4. Slowing Down High-Speed Rail Development
High-speed rail systems are well-established in various parts of the world, particularly in China, Japan, France, Spain, and Germany, where passengers travel between cities at speeds exceeding 240 kilometers (150 miles) per hour. These networks are not only fast and dependable, but they are also more affordable and environmentally friendly compared to flying or driving.
However, the rail system in the US is quite outdated. Currently, there are only 48 kilometers (30 miles) of track where trains can reach speeds of 240 kilometers (150 miles) per hour. In 2009, President Obama proposed a nationwide upgrade to America’s rail network, which would cut the nearly three-hour journey from New York to Washington, D.C. down to just 90 minutes. Yet, this plan has seen little progress, with states like Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin failing to secure the necessary funding for new high-speed rail projects.
As a result, high-speed rail development in the US is fragmented. Some states are using public funds, while others rely on private investments, and some have completely avoided the issue. This leads to a slow and costly process for overcoming obstacles like outdated infrastructure and resistance from freight companies unwilling to share their tracks for faster passenger trains.
High-speed rail is a technology that constantly takes one step forward and one step back. Politicians who initially support high-speed rail often hesitate when public opinion turns against it or when costs spiral, leading to projects that can take years or even decades to complete.
3. Banning Stem Cell Research
Stem cells are unique in that they have the potential to develop into a wide range of specialized cells, including those with crucial functions like regenerating bone marrow. The possibilities for scientific and medical advancements with stem cells are vast, especially with human embryonic stem cells, which are lab-grown from human embryos and hold tremendous potential for researchers.
Given the controversy surrounding cloning, it's no surprise that stem cell research has faced its share of opposition. The process of creating stem cells from human embryos results in the destruction of those embryos, which some view as morally wrong, even akin to murder. Former President George W. Bush sought to severely limit stem cell research by ruling that only stem cells created before 2001 could be used. “I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator,” he stated. As a consequence, stem cell research in the US became significantly harder. Bush wasn’t the first president to take such action; Ronald Reagan had previously banned research on fetal tissue transplants for similar ethical concerns.
Thankfully, not everyone agreed with Bush’s perspective. In 2004, the state of California voted to provide funding for stem cell research. Then, in 2009, President Obama lifted the federal ban, allowing medical research in this field to progress once again.
2. Cutting Funding for Scientific Research
Scientific research is an expensive and time-consuming endeavor. For instance, biomedical research can span as long as 20 years, and the benefits often aren’t immediately clear. When Sarah Palin criticized the funding for fruit fly research, she didn’t recognize that a decade-long study involving fruit flies was, in fact, providing crucial insights into autism spectrum disorders in humans.
It’s unfortunate that political forces often dictate scientific funding. While the US invests more in research than any other nation, about a third of this investment comes from the public sector. The importance of this funding became evident during the 2013 government shutdown when scientists lost access to their labs and equipment, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.
In the US, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is in charge of distributing federal grants for scientific research. However, politicians have intervened by instructing the NSF to prioritize STEM fields over social sciences and to justify every funding decision to Congress. Politicians often claim, 'I am not a scientist,' but still actively micromanage the scientific community’s activities.
Some have suggested that private companies could fill the gaps in scientific research, but it remains uncertain whether these companies would be willing to fund research that offers no immediate financial benefits.
1. Delaying the Transition to Renewable Energy
Renewable energy could be crucial for the future of our planet. Sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal emit significantly less carbon pollution than coal and natural gas. Aside from environmental benefits, renewable energy also brings additional advantages, like diversifying our energy sources and keeping electricity costs affordable.
In 2008, Ohio's legislature set a goal for the state to obtain 12.5 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025. However, in 2014, they shockingly reversed this decision and overturned the standard. A similar situation may unfold in Maine, where there is consideration to reverse the state’s renewable energy mandate. In both cases, politicians are prioritizing the interests of the fossil fuel industry over the well-being of their citizens.
Even though the transition to renewable energy is being hindered, it might be possible to reduce emissions from coal plants, right? Unfortunately, that’s not so simple. The same interest groups opposing renewable energy are also working to block the Environmental Protection Agency from enacting regulations to limit coal plant emissions. This means that not only will the shift to renewable energy take longer, but pollution will continue to increase in the meantime.
