Ken starts off the conversation by posing the question: are science and politics friends or foes? John replies that it simply depends on where the money is, and goes on further to say that science and politics should simply remain separate. To this, Ken points out how much science relies on government funding, and that politics without science would certainly be disastrous. The two go back and forth, debating whether the benefits of allowing politics to interact with science outweigh its potential to distort it. Should science be a disinterested search for truth, or should we direct it to best serve our interests?

John and Ken are joined by Oregon State University professor of philosophy, Sharyn Clough. She joins Ken in arguing that politics and science are necessarily intertwined, and that the best we can do is tell apart the good and the bad politics by examining the evidence. Clough dispells the myth that complete objectivity is possible within science; we will always have our motivations, and therefore must do our best to acknowledge them when carrying out scientific research.

Clough and our hosts then face questions from the audience that range from the prioritization of government research funds to the ability of science to counteract groundless policies. Clough goes on to argue that the distinction between the humanities and the sciences must be erased to allow for the well-rounded thinking that intersection of politics and science demands. The discussion concludes with some last thoughts by John that suggest he remains convinced the two should remain separate to maintain the integrity of science.

Roving Philosophical Report (Seek to 7:50):  Shuka Kalantari speaks with Stanford professor Londa Schiebinger about how political lobbying was necessary for the introduction of pregnant crash test dummies and medical tests that include females.

60-Second Philosopher (Seek to 46:45): Ian Shoales discusses his concerns for the future of science and the misuse of scientific terms.