Samuel Damren
This is the fourth commentary in a series on “thinking like a scientist.”
Prior commentaries discussed the central role the Founding Fathers envisioned for science to play in the new American republic. This commentary contrasts that history and foresight with the attitudes of the Trump administration.
The perspectives and motivations of scientists, particularly those in the life sciences and medical fields, are antithetical to Donald Trump.
Trump, now the president again, remains driven by the philosophy he followed for decision making in private business, i.e. “what’s in it for me?” The “America First” policy transports this philosophy to the international stage. The legitimacy of this approach on the national stage raises different issues.
It is black letter law that a party entrusted to act on behalf of others, whether in business or public service, may not personally profit or benefit from his or her official acts.
In his second term, Trump has directly and indirectly ignored this cornerstone of fiduciary obligation. He receives a hundred-million-dollar jet as a “gift,” re-brands Washington institutions and warships in his name, and openly promotes Trump cryptocurrency and sweetheart dealings for family members in other countries.
This approach to governance is completely at odds with the approach of the American scientific community to public service.
Not only do scientific ideals place humankind ahead of America; the scientific community does not view federal research grants or positions in government as the opportunity to secure personal spoils.
Benjamin Franklin learned that a significant component of successful scientific work depends on the honest and generous sharing of insights by members of the scientific community with no tie to personal profit or benefit. As set forth in the second commentary in this series, perfecting Franklin’s experiments in electricity was a collaborative effort by an “ad hoc” group of thinkers sharing the common purpose to better mankind.
The need for this sort of “no strings attached” collaboration is no different today than it was in Colonial times. Many scientists would argue the need is even greater today because of the greater complexity and scope of scientific investigations across multiple disciplines.
The idea that members of the scientific community might consider abandoning access to this fountain of knowledge in favor of selfish profit or advantage is as antithetical to them as they remain an enigma to Donald Trump for not doing so.
As described in the first commentary of this series, the members of Franklin’s Leather Apron Club had their own pledge of allegiance: “Do you love truth for truth’s sake and will you endeavor impartially to find it and freely communicate it with others?”
Where truth does not serve the selfish interests of persons adopting a personal philosophy of “what’s in it for me,” it is of no value to them. Where truth works against their interests, they will minimize, sidestep, distract, misrepresent or outright lie about the facts in an attempt to negotiate their way around the problem.
The scientific community is different. Scientists know that you cannot ascertain the truth of “how things work” in nature and the universe through some form of negotiation.
Proof of a scientific theory as a scientific truth depends on the ability of others to independently replicate the results of experiments under the rigors of the Scientific Method. It is the “hard stop” to all discussions of whether something is a scientific truth: either the results can be replicated or they can’t.
Climate change is a proven scientific truth. Trump argues that solutions to the problem are too onerous for national economies.
Others respond that the argument is short-sighted because it focuses on today’s economies, not the economies and lives of future generations. For Trump to then claim in reply that climate change is a “hoax” is deceitful from a scientific perspective.
Scientific truth exists independent of any source of governmental edict or religious authority.
It’s not that rulers don’t try. Benjamin Franklin favored pointed lightning rods. George III ordered only blunt ones be installed on British buildings. They did not work. Sir John Pringle, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, objected stating that “the laws of nature were not changeable by royal pleasures.” He was fired by the King. The blunt lightning rods remained ineffectual.
“America’s Newton,” David Rittenhouse, told the Continental Congress in 1775 that “science is great service to mankind in banishing bigotry and superstition from amongst us … It flatters no fashionable princely vice, or national depravity.” The Continental Congress listened.
The final commentary in this series will focus on the harmful actions undertaken by the Trump administration against the scientific community based on the opinions of unqualified appointees, not proof.
Prior commentaries discussed the central role the Founding Fathers envisioned for science to play in the new American republic. This commentary contrasts that history and foresight with the attitudes of the Trump administration.
The perspectives and motivations of scientists, particularly those in the life sciences and medical fields, are antithetical to Donald Trump.
Trump, now the president again, remains driven by the philosophy he followed for decision making in private business, i.e. “what’s in it for me?” The “America First” policy transports this philosophy to the international stage. The legitimacy of this approach on the national stage raises different issues.
It is black letter law that a party entrusted to act on behalf of others, whether in business or public service, may not personally profit or benefit from his or her official acts.
In his second term, Trump has directly and indirectly ignored this cornerstone of fiduciary obligation. He receives a hundred-million-dollar jet as a “gift,” re-brands Washington institutions and warships in his name, and openly promotes Trump cryptocurrency and sweetheart dealings for family members in other countries.
This approach to governance is completely at odds with the approach of the American scientific community to public service.
Not only do scientific ideals place humankind ahead of America; the scientific community does not view federal research grants or positions in government as the opportunity to secure personal spoils.
Benjamin Franklin learned that a significant component of successful scientific work depends on the honest and generous sharing of insights by members of the scientific community with no tie to personal profit or benefit. As set forth in the second commentary in this series, perfecting Franklin’s experiments in electricity was a collaborative effort by an “ad hoc” group of thinkers sharing the common purpose to better mankind.
The need for this sort of “no strings attached” collaboration is no different today than it was in Colonial times. Many scientists would argue the need is even greater today because of the greater complexity and scope of scientific investigations across multiple disciplines.
The idea that members of the scientific community might consider abandoning access to this fountain of knowledge in favor of selfish profit or advantage is as antithetical to them as they remain an enigma to Donald Trump for not doing so.
As described in the first commentary of this series, the members of Franklin’s Leather Apron Club had their own pledge of allegiance: “Do you love truth for truth’s sake and will you endeavor impartially to find it and freely communicate it with others?”
Where truth does not serve the selfish interests of persons adopting a personal philosophy of “what’s in it for me,” it is of no value to them. Where truth works against their interests, they will minimize, sidestep, distract, misrepresent or outright lie about the facts in an attempt to negotiate their way around the problem.
The scientific community is different. Scientists know that you cannot ascertain the truth of “how things work” in nature and the universe through some form of negotiation.
Proof of a scientific theory as a scientific truth depends on the ability of others to independently replicate the results of experiments under the rigors of the Scientific Method. It is the “hard stop” to all discussions of whether something is a scientific truth: either the results can be replicated or they can’t.
Climate change is a proven scientific truth. Trump argues that solutions to the problem are too onerous for national economies.
Others respond that the argument is short-sighted because it focuses on today’s economies, not the economies and lives of future generations. For Trump to then claim in reply that climate change is a “hoax” is deceitful from a scientific perspective.
Scientific truth exists independent of any source of governmental edict or religious authority.
It’s not that rulers don’t try. Benjamin Franklin favored pointed lightning rods. George III ordered only blunt ones be installed on British buildings. They did not work. Sir John Pringle, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, objected stating that “the laws of nature were not changeable by royal pleasures.” He was fired by the King. The blunt lightning rods remained ineffectual.
“America’s Newton,” David Rittenhouse, told the Continental Congress in 1775 that “science is great service to mankind in banishing bigotry and superstition from amongst us … It flatters no fashionable princely vice, or national depravity.” The Continental Congress listened.
The final commentary in this series will focus on the harmful actions undertaken by the Trump administration against the scientific community based on the opinions of unqualified appointees, not proof.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
