|Do Nobel laureates who support Obama do a disservice to the noble cause of curbing climate change?|
As scientists seek to provide policy-relevant knowledge on complex, interdisciplinary problems ranging from fisheries depletion and carbon emissions to obesity and natural hazards, the boundary between the natural and the social sciences has blurred more than many scientists want to acknowledge.
With Republicans generally sceptical of government’s ability and authority to direct social and economic change, the enthusiasm with which leading scientists align themselves with the Democratic party can only reinforce conservative suspicions that for contentious issues such as climate change, natural-resource management and policies around reproduction, all science is social science.
The US scientific community must decide if it wants to be a Democratic interest group or if it wants to reassert its value as an independent national asset.
But Daniel Lende sees here some problems, especially concerning the role of social sciences. Are here social sciences "thrown under the bus", too, in order to not incite the conservatives?
Take your time and go through this discussion in detail. As an anthropologist, I mostly go with Lende; in any case, this is a great start for a long over-due debate about the roles of science, social science and interdisciplinarity. Here again the link to the Lende post.