Caltech President Dr. David Baltimore, a genuine scientific celebrity, addresses the "uneasy relationship" between science and politics. Science, after all, is about truth and discovering facts. Politics, on the other hand, is about the desirable, and the use and accumulation of power. While science had a major role in public policy at mid-century, Baltimore suggests its influence began to wane after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It was not until President Bill Clinton took office, Baltimore says, that the trend began to reverse – but then President George W. Bush was elected, and science was marginalized as much (if not more) than ever before. Bush science advisor John Marburger is "effectively an apologist for an anti-science administration."

The Bush Administraiton has ignored the facts of science in two ways. First, the administration has ignored the "facts" of science, such as in the case of global warming and the need for alternative fuels due to the "increasing scarcity" of liquid fuels, making political drug approval decisions, arbitrary stem cell research policies, and encouraging the teaching of intelligent design. On some of these, Baltimore's criticism is dead on. But in other areas, he is clearly conflating science and policy. The Bush Administration may spin scientific findings when refusing to approve the "Plan B" morning-after pill, but no one mistakes the policy for a "scientific" decision, any ore than one position or another on abortion or the value of embryos is "scientific." These are normative judgments – judgments that science may inform, but judgments that remain normative at their core.

Second, the Administration has ignored the importance of science in American competitiveness. Among other things, the administration has failed to keep the borders open to foreign scientists and adequately support scientific research. Since the arrival of Samuel Bodman as Secretary of Energy, however, the administration has been more supportive of alternative energy and the importance of scientific research for competitiveness. Despite this welcome trend, Baltimore believes, the Bush Administration's approach to science represent "ideology trumping fact-based analysis." Indeed, Baltimore observes, the administration has not shown any increased willingness to consider inconvenient scientific facts.

The Administration's refusal to fund more stem cell research has caused a "sea change" in science funding, Baltimore observes. California, for instance, explicitly legalized and began state-funding of stem cell research. Yet with state funding has come "the release of parochial interests" – Californians want to be sure Californians benefit from the research – which has slowed the issuance of bonds to fund the research.

It's time for rational discussion of scientific issues, Baltimore contends, and time for "getting beyond" debates over the causes of global warming and onto serious policy discussions. In particular, Baltimore notes, the challenge is to find a way to transform solar energy into a liquid fuel to solve the energy problem. More broadly, he hopes science can return to a respected place at the policy table "so at least people know what's right and what's wrong."