Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Politicizing Science 474

Posted by michael from the he-who-has-the-gold dept.
An anonymous reader writes: "The Washington Post has a story about the government's efforts to remove independent scientific review boards and replace them with officials that match the views of administration. This includes careless elimination of life-saving safety regulations in gene-therapy to help specific business interests and hiring based on political views such as stem cell research and cloning. Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Politicizing Science More

Politicizing Science

Comments Filter:

  • Sure they do! (Score:3, Funny)

    by squaretorus ( 459130 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @04:50AM (#4271570) Homepage Journal
    Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?

    What is the point of power if you can't wield it from time to time. If we don't like the way the education system is being run we vote em out of office and get someone new.

    Much better than an unelected quango situation where the public can do nothing!

    • Oligarchy (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      When referring to governments, the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, is of government by a few, usually the rich, for their own advantage. It is compared with both aristocracy, which is defined as government by a few chosen for their virtue and ruling for the general good, and various forms of democracy, or rule by the people. In practice, however, almost all governments, whatever their form, are run by a small minority of members. From this perspective, the major distinction between oligarchy and democracy is that in the latter, the elites compete with each other, gaining power by winning public support. The extent and type of barriers impeding those who attempt to join this ruling group is also significant...

      Quot erat demostratum.

      • Re:Oligarchy (Score:5, Informative)

        by GMontag451 ( 230904 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @09:25AM (#4272558) Homepage
        You actually have that backwards. It is an aristocracy (rule by the aristocrats) that is the government of the few for their own good, usually the rich, but in older countries can include the "noble", or relatives and friends of the royal.

        An oligarchy is the government of a few chosen for their virtue, usually based on their age. Oligarchys have been very rare in Western governments, but were more common in Native American tribes, where it was usually implemented as rule by a council of elders.

        The "democracy" you speak of is in fact a representative democracy, which in practice usually develops into a republic. The difference between a representative democracy and a republic is that in a representative democracy, the elected officials are supposed to have opinions that are representative of the majority of the citizens that official represents. In a republic, all that matters is popularity, and popularity among the upper class being more important (but not all important) than the middle and lower classes. There is no true nobility in a republic because the influence of the lower classes still exists, although there may be a minority slave class that has no influence.

        The difference between a republic and a aristocracy (which is the comparison you were trying to make between an oligarchy and a democracy) is that in a republic there is that gradient of influence, and the majority of people have at least some, but not necessarily an equal, say in the government of the country. In an aristocracy, the majority of the people have no say in the government.

    • Re:Sure they do! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by snatchitup ( 466222 )
      Or how about during the Clinton administraction's EPA head Carol Browner basically fudged a study on particulates. The test case was five cities. They were measuring the health problems due to particulates. Turns out that they could only positive data in two of the five cities. So, what to they do? They throw out two of the cities as if they didn't even study them. They post their conclusion that: 66% of inner city children are dying from particulates.

      There really is something to the "Junk Science" theory. Once you get political policy involved, and dollars, you get a bunch of junk!

      • Re:Sure they do! (Score:2, Informative)

        by alkali ( 28338 )
        If you are referring to the Harvard Six Cities Study (Dockery et al., 1993), you may be unaware that a recent reanalysis of that data by the Health Effects Institute, an organization funded by the EPA and industry, has reaffirmed the correctness of that study.

        The Harvard Six Cities Study showed increased mortality -- i.e., early death -- associated with particulate air pollution. Industry spent millions to smear that study as junk science. Interested persons are invited to Google [google.com] and read what they find; just remember that web pages for organizations called "Citizens Against Junk Science" are industry-backed and evaluate with due care.

      • Re:Sure they do! (Score:2, Insightful)

        by NelsChristian ( 66295 )
        Don't forget Ruckelshaus & DDT. The staff report did not find enough evidence & recommended no action. Mr Ruckelshaus had compaigned against DDT, so out it went.

        The article states that these are advisory committees. It seems reasonable to staff them with people whose opinions you trust. It certainly shouldn't be controversial to be staffing them with both sides of an issue.

    • Re:Sure they do! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rooktoven ( 263454 )
      *we vote em out of office and get someone new.

      This only works in countries that have legitimate elections though.

    • If we don't like the way the education system is being run we vote em out of office and get someone new.

      That doesn't work when you have 60% of your voting population that is either ignorant or apathetic.

  • AFAICT: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by edrugtrader ( 442064 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @04:53AM (#4271575) Homepage
    michael can post whatever he wants... case in point.

    • Re:AFAICT: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hobit ( 253905 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:21AM (#4271634)
      Consider the following quote from the end of the article:
      HHS's Pierce said the committee remains balanced overall, and no prospective member of any advisory committee is subjected to political screenings.

      "It's always a matter of qualifications first and foremost," Pierce said. "There's no quotas on any of this stuff. There's no litmus test of any kind."

      At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee, disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.

      Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."

      This clearly relates to science as practiced in the USA. If one can't hold a science job because of views on physician assisted suicide, I'm not real sure our government is finding the best people to advise it. I'd say something like this belongs on slashdot.

      • Re:AFAICT: (Score:3, Funny)

        by MrResistor ( 120588 )
        Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."

        But he's right! Litmus tests use paper strips, and the interview was clearly done over the phone!

  • Do you trust your politicians ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by makapuf ( 412290 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @04:55AM (#4271576)
    Of course, research has to be political, even many ppl here on slashdot won't agree.
    By political, you mean for example the fact that some things are not agreeable to work on such as human cloning.
    And I think the budget decisions on how much money is granted to a research branch is political

    The main question, here, is how much should it be politized and if you trust yourpoliticians.
    The right way to fix the problem may not be to give them less power, but to have politicians you trust.

    I am a European, but is the real question : do you trust Bush government on defining Science ? Would you trust Nader ?

    • Re:Do you trust your politicians ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:11AM (#4271610)
      Do you trust Bush government on defining Science? Would you trust Nader?

      No and Yes.

      See "Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry" by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton (http://www.commoncouragepress.com/rampton_sludge. html)

      More and more it seems to me that Bush has been taken his cues from Stalin...

    • Re:Do you trust your politicians ? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zork the Almighty ( 599344 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:16AM (#4271620) Journal
      I agree with your point that everything is essentially politicized, however the main concern here is that the people appointed to these boards will replace scientific objectivity with their own personal views. That is not the purpose of a scientific board. If the Bush administration wants to create "policy review boards", and stack them full of these people, so be it. They did that with the Energy Review Board (=Oil, Gas and Coal industry), and everyone knew it was a sham. The problem here is that by using scientific panels for this purpose, they will decrease the amount of real information available to people. The net effect is the same as if they had simply eliminated scientific review boards altogether.

      The Bush administration has used this same tactic over and over again. They create an information vacuum, and then implement whatever policy they want, under the pretext that "nobody knows any better". If they're going to do that, I'd prefer they just eliminate the scientific review boards altogether and save money. Then they can tell the public that "we just do whatever the hell we want, and we won't pay for some egghead to tell us any different". For one, it'd be the truth, but I'm just a little worried that Bush would be more popular for saying something like that.

    • Re:Do you trust your politicians ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rgmoore ( 133276 ) <glandauer@charter.net> on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @10:34AM (#4273054) Homepage

      No. Research should not be political; the decisions that our government makes about research are political. There are two basic ways that research and politics should interact:

      • Politicians decide how much money we should be spending on research of different types.
      • Politicians listen to researchers to get advice about matters of public policy where the research is relevant.

      I don't have a big problem with changes in the first one. I don't think that our leaders should let their personal religious beliefs guide what kind of research they support, but ultimately that's why we have checks and balances and elections. If one group of politicians makes a stupid choice that way, I have confidence that another group will disagree and the second group will eventually get a chance to reverse the decision. That may take a while, but it's all part of the democatic process.

      What really stinks is when people try to undermine the advisory function. I want my legislators and government regulators to be making decisions based on the best scientific advice they can get. If one or a small number of people can set up the committees so that they'll give the advice that those people want rather than the advice that the latest science suggests is correct, that undermines their purpose and the democratic process. That would allow a handful of people to define the agenda and bias the decision making process, which is exactly contrary to the advisory committees intended purpose.

  • But in the long run, it will make no difference at all. Think about it, will the public really trust these stacked "review" boards anyway. Appearently, the general public is mostly ignorant of their existence to begin with. People are beginning to see that everything is just "spin". Anyone with enough money/power/influence can produce any study to show anything, this is hardly new, and I doubt anyone is really fooled. They can destroy the legitimacy of their own processes as much as they want, but ultimately the government "of the people, by the people, for the people" will answer to the people, if they piss everyone off.

    • Re:In the short run, this will make for bad polici (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thales ( 32660 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:56AM (#4271712) Homepage Journal
      "Think about it, will the public really trust these stacked "review" boards anyway."


      Did they trust Clinton's stacked boards? The Dems get a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Tree Huggers, so they put Tree Huggers on the boards. The GOP gets a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Fundies, so they put Fundies on the Boards. No matter which party is in power, it's a foolish to assume that a goverment "science review" board is unbiased. They exist to endorse administration policy, not to give unbiased advice.

      • The GOP gets a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Fundies, so they put Fundies on the Boards.

        Actually it is the Fundies who are upset because the bio-research board has been stacked with bio-research company scientists.

  • Gov is owned by Corporate America so...its WRONG (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:01AM (#4271585)
    Its all fine and dandy to say you can vote out the Government if you don't like the way they're running things... but with the truth being that governments are often the puppets of the large corporate lobby groups and their funding, having the governments interests running scientific research means that your getting McDonald's (fast food), Phillip Morris (tobacco / entertainment) Pfiezer (drugs) interests being served by the scientific community. Not science for the sake of science. Funnily enough these large corporations aren't interested in curing cancer, but rather selling product and making a profit. These prime directives interfere and oppose the Scientific communities general urges to do research for the good of society.

    Fast answer is Bzzzt. WRONG
    • WARNING - mostly relevant to USA, sorry ya' damn foreigners...


      Question: how do you vote? It's a serious, not a rhetorical, question.


      I agree with you... up to a point. It's hard to ignore the steady increase in the amount of money being spent on elections and the consistent pulling of the teeth of any attempt at campaign finance reform (golly, remember way back before the "world changed..." you know, back before everybody learned that a)airplanes are flammable, b)tall buildings are easy targets, and c)there are a lot of people out there that really hate the USA? Remember way back before that, when we Americans were all so oblivious to the danger of somebody flying an airplane into us that we were actually getting a little tiny bit worked up about "campaign finance reform" for a little tiny while? Vaguely? No? Yeah, well it was a long time ago...)


      Despite this almost everyone I know falls to the thinking that "if I don't vote for corporate sponsored candidate X corporate sponsored candidate Y will get eleceted... and that will mean the end of the world!" When I tell my friends that I've lost the belief that there is a substantive difference between DFLer and GOPers, (a SUBSTANTIVE difference, mind you... yes they have very different rhetorical platforms and will tend to split on certain key issues... abortion, for example...) they ger VERY ANGRY.


      I had "liberal" friends who got VERY ANGRY at me for voting for Ralph Nader in the presdidential election... despite the fact that it was a sheerly strategic vote, to help increase minor party power in Minnesota, because I KNEW Gore would carry MN (freaking Mondale carried MN, okay? Dukakis carried MN) and so my vote had no impact on the outcome of the national election. They got ANGRY at me.


      So, how do you vote? I vote strategically. Because the sad fact is that I can't find anyone to vote for that I think has a snowball's chance of getting elected who I would actually like to see elected. To be honest, most of the people I vote for would probably be lousy or at best inneffectual if they actually got elected. But at least a little tiny bit of federal cash gets put somewhere besides the epic battle of "Business as Usual" versus "Same Old Same Old."


      I look at Bush the younger, who took his "he believes in the Federal government and I believe in the People" rhetoric to Washington and has proceeded to orchestrate the biggest Federal land grab for power at the expense of individual liberty (read the stinking P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, okay... and remember that only 1 Democrat, 1 Independent and Three conservative Republicans had the grapes to stand up for the constitution in the face of terrorism...) that has occurred in my lifetime. Like smaller government? Well you'll like the huge consolidation of federal power that will occur under the flag of "Homeland Security" (would someone please tell me when I started living in a homeland? I was certain I lived in nation...)


      Or I look at Clinton and the Democrats... As dirty on Enron as any Republican, soft as warm butter on the environment, civil liberty, corporate reform. I love the way my friends who enjoy the occasional "mind altered" experience vote Dem because Democrats are Liberal and Liberals are more "Enlightened" in drug law reform... despite the fact that the most draconian anti-drug legislation of the last two decades was written by Democrats in a mad dash to prove they were "tough on crime..." and despite the fact that Bill Clinton signed legislation that, had it been in effect when his OWN BROTHER was convicted for cocaine posession, would have put him away for TWENTY YEARS. Jeezus, what the hell kind of people ARE these?


      So, I continue to vote as strategically as I can to facilitate some foothold of independent action agains the corporate-sponsored "divide and conquer" strategy which has so effectively dismantled the relevance of representative democracy in this nation. Honestly, I'd like a better option, I really would. How do YOU vote?

    • Life might be a lot simpler if you believe something like this, but the fact is that in our system of goverment, we elect people to act as our representives in government.
      Since democracy = government by the popular, to run for office, one needs to use the media. Since our democracy is capitalist and media outlets are not state-run, this costs money.
      Corporations understand this. If MegaCorp X* (* insert your particular corporate villain here, or labor group, or environmental group, or any lobby or PAC) likes the policies one endorses, they will give that individual (their campaign, their party, etc) money to access the media outlets more successfully.
      Do I think that there is some implied quid pro quo involved? Certainly in some cases at least, it would be naive to believe otherwise. Do I think Greenpeace hands Barbara Boxer a check for $50,000 and says "now you must vote to do what we say!" Hardly. To believe THAT is equally naive. Entities support the politicians that align with their interests. Companies that give to BOTH sides are simply arming themselves for both eventualities, and hoping that the implied quid pro quo is enough to maintain that politician's favor.
      The question is, what do you think is so much better - a totally state-controlled scientific system in which companies have NO say in what gets research funding/focus? Or perhaps a totally free-market system where the government gives NO money for scientific research, and companies/foundations can follow whatever they want.
      Is our system perfect? No. But the statement "Government is owned by Corporate America" is as banal as it is naive.

  • Not science (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dswan69 ( 317119 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:07AM (#4271599)
    Then it isn't science. Review by independent scientists is a fundamental part of science. Unfortunately the vast majority of people have no understanding of science or its principles.

    • Re:Not science (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:52AM (#4271705)
      Then it isn't science. Review by independent scientists is a fundamental part of science.

      You've misunderstood. There are two questions here:
      1. Was the research conducted in a professional, rigorous and objective manner?
      2. What research should we be funding in the first place?

      Item 1 is obviously best assessed by independant scientists, because it can be measured relatively objectively and requires scientific skill. Point 2 is unsuitable for independant scientists for a number of reasons. Firstly, what is the objective of funding research in the first place? Is it to advance knowledge for its own sake, or to solve specific problems that are facing civilization?

      Unfortunately the vast majority of people have no understanding of science or its principles.

      And secondly, what is considered acceptable subject matter for research by the taxpayer? Scientists often forget that it's the "unwashed masses" who foot the bill for their expensive toys. No matter what scientists think are the benefits - and no matter how skillful their rhetoric - if the general public doesn't want to fund research into XXX, then those scientists should not receive a penny of taxpayer's money.

      This is illustrated in the matter of stem cell research. There are undoubtedly benefits to such research, and the scientists from point 1 would be happy for it, from the perspective of pure science. But it's up to the people in point 2 - on whose behalf the research is being done - to make the decision. If the scientists disagree, well, they should find their own funding.
      • Hey,

        if the general public doesn't want to fund research into XXX, then those scientists should not receive a penny of taxpayer's money.

        Now that's one area I'd be happy to 'research' for free...

        Michael
    • Independent boards staffed by volunteers are often biased as well. Boards dealing with medical science are often staffed with self-styled "medical ethicists", and like to propose bans on stem cell research, genetics research, and so on. Proponents of such research usually cannot be bothered to volunteer for such boards. Similarly, environmental boards are staffed mostly with scientists who are also environmentalists. In my country at least, these boards make biased and rather conservative recommendations, conservative being "opposed to new things" rather than "right wing".

      Funny, over here the tendency is to ban things, while it seems these boards in the US seem to swing the other way and take a rather laissez-faire attitude. You'd expect real scientists to choose to research, then regulate.

    • It was NEVER science! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @08:23AM (#4272239)
      These independent review boards were not doing peer review of other scinetists work they are little think tanks that give policy advice. They were never (if such a thing is even possible when giving policy advice) giving their advice from some pure knowledge-for-it's-own-sake scientific stance. They have always been staffed by scientists and academicians and LAWYERS who are activists or politically biased.

      The only thing happening here is that a group of (who are very influential because they can set the initial terms of debate) policy advisors that agreed with the views of the last administration is being replaced by a group of policy advisors that agree with the views of the current administration.

  • blind leadin the blind (Score:4, Funny)

    by inoffensif ( 604265 ) <waygook@NOSPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:09AM (#4271606) Homepage

    "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." --George W. Bush, May 5, 2000

    With statements like that from their leader I'd hate to see what US govt officials have to say about embryo cell research and cloning...

  • Yes and yes (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Isle ( 95215 )
    Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"

    What do you mean or? The answer to both question is yes. It is wrong, but whose in power do what they want.

    The danish government did a similiar thing back in the spring, they even admited openly they have cut down on review-boards that they considered too "lefty". This is the problem with government with a too stable majority; noone to oppose them.

  • History is the best teacher (Score:3, Informative)

    by male ( 71469 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:14AM (#4271616) Homepage
    This is pretty scary. Perhaps the illustrious President Bush should do a little reading about one Mr. Vannevar Bush. His dream of a government with a commitment to basic and practical sciences has slowly, with many fluctuations, become closer to a reality. More actions like this to destroy government research would put us back 30 years.

    Riding the wave of unprecedented collaboration between academia and the government during World War II, Vannevar Bush released a well-known (but not well read) report, Science: The Endless Frontier, outlining a new role for the federal government in research. He foresaw the need to replace the minimal government science policy with one that would supply the US with human resources for science, a research infrastructure between Government and universities, and a balance between fundamental research and national goals.

    Vannevar helped set science policy in the US that has lasted for 60 years, and this administration's actions flies right in the face of that policy. Maybe Gdub should go do some reading:
    http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush194 5.htm


    • Bush Junior and Bush Senior were relaxing on a Florida beach one summer afternoon..

      "Look dad", says Junior, "a big boat"..

      "That's not a boat son, that's a yacht.."

      "Huh, how do you write that father ?"

      Small pause, ... "No, you're right son, that's a boat."

  • er, yes (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 )

    Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"

    Hmm.. I sense a rhetorical question ... ;) Yes, those elected get to do what they want with tax money. You like it, when they're dems, so don't pretend to oppose it generally.

    Call me when they start pushing aquired heredity or a flat earth. Until then, yawn.

    • Re:er, yes (Score:2, Insightful)

      by J'raxis ( 248192 )
      "You like it, when they're dems,"

      I do? Ah, you're one of those pinheaded Americans that think there's only Republican, or Democrat. "With us or against us," eh?

      • I do? Ah, you're one of those pinheaded Americans that think there's only Republican, or Democrat

        Ah, intelligent conversation ...

        Did you write the story? Lesse ... I responded top level ... I think Michael is an American, isn't he? And he was talking about the US, right? And judging by the views in his write up (and his usual fare), yes, I suspect he does like it when Democrats spend and regulate.

        Since I was more or less talking to him, sorry I didn't mention Christian Democrats or whatever parties you have wherever the hell you are. Didn't seem relevant.

        But have a nice day. We love you furriners ya know, your petty jealousies and all ;)

  • Admittedly, independent review boards are not perfect - they can & will be influenced, as with any other real world review system (juries, anyone?).

    This type of board-packing, however, is completely shameless, and unfortunately is also perfectly consistent with the administration's "top-down" approach to everything.

    When Bush & Co. ran for office, they were forthright about wanting to run the country like a business; however, everyone thought he meant "efficiently, with less waste", not "as a way to make money for the people at the top as quickly as possible, ignoring the actual accepted methods of governance, including listening to anyone, whenever possible".

    I'm actually beginning to miss Clinton's disingenuity; he at least had the shame to try and cover up his malfeasance and two-facedness.

    I guess we can only hope that Bush + Cheney are infected with one of the diseases that gov't stem cell research was working on. Ah...
    • You seem to be ceasing to be a democratic nation and are becoming a corporate oligarchy (and before anybody accuses me of being anti-American, the same thing is happening here in the UK).

      It would be more honest if you renamed members of the administration, Fritz Hollings already seems to be nominated as the senator for Disney, presumably now you need senators for Xerox, Pfizer, General Motors etc. This would give people an idea of who these people really represent.

  • As if (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:19AM (#4271627)
    As if the committees weren't biased before.

    '"It's very frustrating," said Paul Gelsinger, who became a member of the committee after his son, Jesse, died in a Pennsylania gene therapy experiment that was later found to have broken basic saftey rules.'

    Bet that guy's impartial.

  • Careless writing (Score:5, Informative)

    by return 42 ( 459012 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:21AM (#4271633)
    This includes careless elimination of life-saving safety regulations in gene-therapy...

    Um, the article actually talks about regulation of genetic tests...

  • To be expected (Score:3, Insightful)

    by _Spirit ( 23983 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @05:25AM (#4271642) Journal
    Correct me if I'm wrong but if an administration's chance of being re-elected is mainly made up of the amount of contributions they get from companies, isn't it to be expected that the administration will make policies favoring these companies. This is not a political statement, just an observation.
  • I didn't vote for them, it's not my goverment. I wish mine was that consistent about where they do stand. You could say that the governing body believes in something..!

    In any case, if the people don't like this kind of thing, there's always the next election. Someone want those committees run themselves free of any external pressure whatsoever? Jack Valenti anyone?
  • Ever since the first rich landowner sponsored a pet scientist to work on projects there has been a political and social element to science.

    Science is a powerful political and social tool. Especially in times of crisis and war. Look at the amount of science that was funded/pushed aside during the second world war. Or even the politicising of areas such as healthcare research and genetics.

    Back in teh day it was the church that used science, not it's governments.

    Rivals provides a great insight into this (michael white) as does chomsky and koestler in more depth.

    Or even the work that has gone into SSK and contestation and dissemination of controversial or sensitive knowledge and research.
    • Indeed.

      The church used to have a stranglehold on science. Even today, there are people who don't see how they can coexist, or, in most cases, even care to try.

      Hopefully, there aren't a whole lot of people who religously devote themselves to politics.
  • What this article and others on such sources as The New Republic [tnr.com] point out is that the Bush administration isn't really doing something new, but that it's gotten more brazen and openly opportunistic. It is the abandonment of any idealism whatsoever that is so shocking.

    Bush just trusts his fellow MBA's more than the professionals. His only measure of success is short-term profit. Ethics are secondary. The worst part is that if you don't agree with him, then you're an Enemy.

  • Guardian Interview with Christopher Reeve (Score:5, Informative)

    by alistair ( 31390 ) <alistair AT hotldap DOT com> on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @06:11AM (#4271741)
    Interestly enough, there is a Guardian inteview with Christoper Reeve in todays issue in which he makes a number of passionate and obviously, very personal, points about stem cell research and the need for separation between Church and State. The interview can be read here

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,793 585,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

    One of many excellent quotes is,

    "We've had a severe violation of the separation of church and state in the handling of what to do about this emerging technology. Imagine if developing a polio vaccine had been a controversial issue," he says. "There are religious groups - the Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe - who think it's a sin to have a blood transfusion. What if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research? Where would we be with blood transfusions?"

    It's an interesting read, not only for his political comments but also to see his determination to fight back when many would have given up.
    • What if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research?

      (Emphasis mine)

      Maybe it got lost in the malestrom of Summer 2001, but 1) I remember there was much debate about stem cell research from a variety of talking heads across the spectrum; 2) it boiled down to Bush looking at the polls and flipping a coin; and 3) Bush would be more influenced by the Christian Religious Right in the Republican Party.

    • Interview with Christopher Reeve (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @07:15AM (#4271904)
      Christopher Reeve has been mentioned several times lately here.

      I think it would be worth while to set up an interview on Slashdot with him.

      Any one else agree?
      • I hope an editor sees this. Reeve has a very personal view on the use of advances such as stem cell research. However, I would also like to hear his answers to the nay-sayers that have messed his chances up.


      • > I think it would be worth while to set up an interview on Slashdot with him.

        Seconded.

        Meanwhile, FYI, there will be a documentary about him and an interview on ABC tomorrow (Wednesday) evening. As I understand it, the documentary was made by his son over the past 18 months, and shows Christopher actually making some surprising (albeit limited) progress. Last year they put him in a swimming pool for the first time since his injury, and were surprised to discover that he could move his feet a little bit. Apparently there has been more progress since then, though I haven't heard how much.

    • Sure, Bush has his reasons. And Chris Reeve has his. Do you think Chris is being compleely objective in weighing the ethical and moral implications of stem cell research? Hell no, he has a vested interest in seeing it get gobs of money regardless of any ethical issues. If it could make him walk again I'm sure he'd throw a grenade into a box of kittens. So let's not pretend that Christopher Reeves is the impartial voice of reason, ok?
      • Except that it's total bullshit. He's not throwing grenades into boxes of kittens. He's trying to help people recover from debilitating injuries and diseases. And the church is trying to prevent it in order to further their political campaign against abortion.

        If the church was really after humanitarian causes rather than trying to make sure new disciples spawn as quickly as possible, they would have objected to embryo-juggling in fertility clinics, which had been going on for years before stem cell research got big. But no, they only got the ball rolling now. So transparent.

        There is nothing inhumane about embryonic stem cell research, and everything inhuman about hindering it. Similarly with abortion - the church doesn't care about suffering and crime and the ruined lives of young mothers, rape victims, etc. They care about pumping out more believers. And our parents might remember from a few years ago when the church was still campaigning against birth control.

        They don't campaign for things for fun, and if they were great moral crusaders, we'd see church-backed demonstrations and "nuremberg files" websites on the environment or corruption in government or colonialism, or any of the other big causes of the poverty they make such a show of "ministering to." Of course, if ministering happens to be recruitment too, hey, who was using those poor people anyway?

        Let me spell it out for you.

        80% of the world's Catholics live below the poverty line.

        Catholicism is a disease that preys on the poor and ignorant.

        Or perhaps it's more like a paraiste. It attaches, sucks out money and work, changes behavior to further propagate itself... "You wouldn't like the world without the church." I'll take it any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

        Some time from now, when we can look back on it with the illumination of hindsight, the anti-birth-control,anti-stem-cell,anti-abortion campaign will look as evil and cynical as the crusades, or their unwillingness to institute zero-tolerance against pedophile priests, or the church's policital struggles to control Europe (still being fought today, for instance, in Ireland!). Especially on the eve of a Malthusian population nightmare.

        What's that, you ask? There are over six billion people on earth. The last billion of which were born in the last ten years. Do the math. Or maybe you went to catholic school, and they taught you some of that new math?

        • Let me spell it out for you.

          80% of the world's Catholics live below the poverty line.

          Let me spell it out for you: more than 80% of the world's population live below the poverty line. Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and all. Do you seriously think you have made a logical point?

          Catholicism is a disease that preys on the poor and ignorant.

          If so, you must be at least half-Catholic. Don't know if you are poor, but you fit the second condition perfectly! (Applying your own style of logic, of course.)

    • As a kid, I thought he made a kickass Superman, but ever since I saw him on the Celebrity Atheists List [celebatheists.com], Christopher Reeve has been a hero and inspiration.

      Reeve has every reason to chicken out and go the religious route, as do many people who have their lives so disrupted. What courage to put his faith in things that really matter: the continuing advance of science, the companionship of loved ones, and the power of personal force of will.

      Thanks to that, he has started to recover some movement and sesnsation over much of his body. No miracles involved.
  • In a very timely interview Christopher Reeves [guardian.co.uk] blames a breakdown in the separation between church and state, namely Bushes dependence and appreciation of right wing Christian groups, for him still being paralysed

    "We've had a severe violation of the separation of church and state in the handling of what to do about this emerging technology. Imagine if developing a polio vaccine had been a controversial issue," he says. "There are religious groups - the Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe - who think it's a sin to have a blood transfusion. What if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research? Where would we be with blood transfusions?"

    Whether it's right for the separation of the church from deciding what's right and wrong in science experiments could be argued till the cows come home. What's not arguable is that any intrusion of politics into scientific debate won't be to the benefit of some special interest group.

    A third committee, which had been assessing the effects of environmental chemicals on human health, has been told that nearly all of its members will be replaced -- in several instances by people with links to the industries that make those chemicals. One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.

    Ugh, can you imagine that scientist being totally objective ? At the moment US politics is completely dominated by companies trying to screw as much as they can out of the world. Putting them in charge of any advisory committees that help determine federal policy is going to be good for business and terrible for the US public.
    • What's not arguable is that any intrusion of politics into scientific debate won't be to the benefit of some special interest group.

      But this situation is the exact opposite. These are not review boards are not doing peer review or anything else scientific. They are giving policy advise or at most setting the scientific terms of political debate. This story is not about politicians doing science it is about scientists doing politics! The scientists that HAD been doing politics largely agreed with the biases and policy views of the previous administration. The new administration is intent on getting policy proposals from scientists that agree (on the politics) with them. The best thing that can be said about such boards is that they ARE staffed by scientists (and a few lawyers) and that their findings are based on the available science filtered (as was inevitable) through the political views of the administration.

      Applying science to policy is NOT science it is politics. The administration that wins is entitled to it's own advisors (or we end up being ruled by an unelected beuracracy). That's not to say that there isn't room for reform of how science informs the political process, just that this story is not as big or as "anti-science" as is being implied in the article.

      One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.

      Ugh, can you imagine that scientist being totally objective ?

      I really don't know. But if you think Holywood, Julia Roberts and Christopher Reeves are competent to peer review his work I think maybe YOU also have some problems being totally objective.

  • Politics is just the manifestation of your philosophy and morality. It's not possible to separate this from science, or anything else.

    Is it OK to experiment on adults? Children? Babies? Pre-babies? Why or why not? At some point, your religion, philosophy, morality, whatever, have to become involved. There is no other basis for making such decisions. The Pete Singer's of the world are at least honest (if repulsive) in admitting what their bias is.

    "Let's just put our differences aside and do what I think is right", seems to be the battle cry here. Nope, sorry. We settle these differences through politics. At least in the western world we do it at the ballot box, ultimately.

  • I think we are now seeing the end result of the business slogan of the early nineties that everything is subjective. This belief, that there are no real objective standards, is popular with the business community because it provides the ultimate get-out. But then, I fscked up my career with one company by pointing out to the President that badly built bridges really do fall down and defective aeroplanes really do crash. You perceive the results, true, but the effects are objective

    The interesting thing is that this belief is actually a hangover from the Soviet era when the Communist government believed that it could reconstruct reality to suit dogma.

    Of course, this belief fouled up Soviet science. Now it looks like Bush and co. are going to repeat the process. Instead of communist apparatchiks deciding what is science and what isn't, capitalist apparatchiks do the job.

    Forget the separation of Church and State for a moment, anyone sufficiently badly educated or stupid to believe Creationism for a microsecond shouldn't be left in charge of a potato chip, let alone a school board or a government.

    Ah well, I don't expect European bioresearch and pharmaceuticals companies are too worried. The day Bush needs a stem cell based treatment for Alzheimer's, or whatever, he'll have a sudden conversion to science.

  • Of course they are. To suggest that scientists have somehow transcended above the human experience is ludicrous. EVERY scientist has an agenda.

    Case in point, when Carl Sagan says that there are probably billions of other life forms in the universe, is this based on scientific analysis of the factual evidence, or because of an eager, heartfelt desire to prove their existence?

    • Re:Science is biased and agenda-driven (Score:4, Insightful)

      by catfood ( 40112 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @09:55AM (#4272770) Homepage
      Case in point, when Carl Sagan says that there are probably billions of other life forms in the universe, is this based on scientific analysis of the factual evidence, or because of an eager, heartfelt desire to prove their existence?

      It's based on an eager heartfelt desire to go find out!

      That's what science is: "I don't know, let's find out!"

  • One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.

    Well, OK then. If Holywood has peer reviewed his work and found it wanting he MUST be a bad scientist.

  • Well, it would make sense that if you want total control you remove the existance/relevance of a Free and Independant Academia.

    All aboard the Totalitarianism Train, next stop: Fascism! TOOT! TOOT!

  • Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?

    Gee, could you state this in a more biased, loaded and patronizing manner? Hell, why not just make up my mind for me, and relieve me of the burden of thinking.

  • What it means to have the highest perspective (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wytcld ( 179112 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @09:41AM (#4272664) Homepage
    In response to those posting stuff like, "Clinton appointed tree huggers; turnabout is fair play": There's a real question of whether our leaders want to lead from a "commanding position." A commanding position is one in which they have the best perspective, which requires the best advice from all sides. If you look at Clinton's compromise on the NW forests, you'll see that whatever you think of how the compromise was balanced, he had advice from all sides, and showed evidence of awareness of that advice in his own final position.

    The point is, the leader needs an overview. That's why the general stands on the hill over the battle; why the CEO has a corner office high on the tower; why the pharoah is symbolized by the pyramid, and the pyramid crowned by the eye.

    Instead, in Bush, we have someone who wants to lead not from a high perspective that folds into itself the partial perspectives from those with lower vantages, but from the trenches, convinced that the only higher perspective he needs is that of the God who put him there - a God at whose right hand, if you trace the money, was Enron.

    From the article:

    "It's always a matter of qualifications first and foremost," Pierce said. "There's no quotas on any of this stuff. There's no litmus test of any kind."

    At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee, disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.

    Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."

  • > At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an
    > administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee,
    > disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official
    > asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and
    > physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer
    > told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else
    > because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.

    > Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said
    > of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."

    Well, technically that's true, they didn't measure the pH of the candidate.
  • In my humble opinion, pretty simple:
    If your research is funded by tax dollars, then you should be subject to "politics." Honestly, if you take public dollars to fund your project, then you should be answerable to the public (i.e. politicians or some public leadership).

    If you don't take public funds, then you should only be answerable to the law and your conscience.

    Of course, that is in a perfect world...

Slashdot Top Deals

Many people write memos to tell you they have nothing to say.

Close