If it's Perry: Anti-Science Label Sticks

If Rick Perry is the nominee, we will hear stepped-up criticism that there is a Republican “war on science,” that the GOP is anti-intellectual and antipathetic to facts and analysis. Such criticism will resonate with many voters, precisely because Perry’s nomination will be evidence that it’s true.

In August, shortly after entering the race, Perry generated controversy with comments about climate change and biological evolution. He dismissed anthropogenic global warming as an unproven assertion by scientists who have “manipulated data” to spur funding for their projects. He described evolution as a theory with “some gaps in it” and said that it’s taught alongside creationism in Texas (which if true would raise questions about the constitutionality of Texas' science curricula).

Do such statements make Perry anti-science? National Review editor Rich Lowry argues no, on the grounds that Perry’s real problem is not with these scientific theories but rather with the political or philosophical conclusions that liberals draw from them. But Perry didn’t argue on such grounds. He did not argue that carbon regulations fail a cost-benefit analysis, or that evolution doesn’t logically entail atheism. Rather, he misrepresented where science stands, even adding a bogus fraud charge against climate researchers.

An important task for the Republican nominee will be moving the party beyond its current vulnerability to the criticism that it is anti-science. A crucial task for the next president will be working to bolster American scientific and technological capacity at a time of severe budget pressures and growing international competition. Perry has wasted no time demonstrating he is unequal to those challenges.