Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Science

U.S. Pushing Conservative Science 1036

Posted by michael
from the badthink dept.
mozumder writes "Does abortion lead to breast cancer? Does condom use lead to increased sexual activity? According to the government, the answer is now inconclusive. The New York Times has a story on how the government is altering low-level scientific conclusions to satisfy conservatives. Will this lead to a mistrust of the government? Or is the government now correct?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Pushing Conservative Science

Comments Filter:
  • by SoVi3t (633947) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @05:34AM (#4975562)
    Will this lead to a mistrust of the government? Umm, since when was the government actually trusted?
  • by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @05:44AM (#4975581)
    Tell me again how a sheep's bladder may be used to prevent earthquakes!

  • by Anonvmous Coward (589068) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @05:50AM (#4975600)
    I don't blame them. According to the studies I've heard, I should be blind now. I haven't had any real problems other than needing to shave my hands once in a while.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2002 @05:53AM (#4975612)
    So..... I take it you're not going to vote for Bush in 2004?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2002 @05:56AM (#4975622)
    Thank you CONSUMER #4483928323423. We have updated you TIA profile. You are now restricted from buying anything or using any goverment service. If you wish to appeal please deliver a letter to our offices in Alaska.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2002 @05:57AM (#4975628)
    Yeah but Galileo lived in the 16th/17th centuries, when the church's power was supreme, and countries were ruled by power-crazed morons... Now you mention it, part of that does sound familiar...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2002 @06:00AM (#4975637)

    How is this "news for nerds"???

  • by Tracy Reed (3563) <treedNO@SPAMultraviolet.org> on Sunday December 29, 2002 @06:41AM (#4975743) Homepage
    Q: Does masturbation cause you to go blind?

    A: Not as far as I can see.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2002 @07:56AM (#4975896)
    (process works only on an empty stomach)
    1. Fill bladder with aged whisky.
    2. Empty entire bladder into your mouth as rapidly as possible.
    3. Repeat quickly until the world seems to darken.

    If you follow these steps exactly, I can confidently assure you that you will feel no earthquake at all.
  • by kfg (145172) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @07:57AM (#4975900)
    they make sex safer from unintended consequences.

    All we need to do is apply this to guns, then there'll be more, but safer guns.

    The conclusion is obvious. Nerf bullets.

    KFG
  • by blincoln (592401) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @07:57AM (#4975901) Homepage Journal
    I've been looking into moving to Switzerland

    I was thinking of Britain or Germany. But then I remembered that there are a *lot* of people who feel similarly. It wouldn't be possible for us all to move over there. Besides, my family has been on this continent for almost four centuries.

    I figure the best bet is to split the US into at least three countries. The South has always wanted to be their own anyway, so it could be them, the Free West and the In The Image of Dubyah East. Kind of like how Deutschland was, except the wall would be of mutual benefit.

    Of course, we all know what happened the last time part of the US tried to secede. Obviously someone would have to convert the better part of DC into green glass for this plan to succeed.
  • by commodoresloat (172735) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @08:39AM (#4976003)
    In Soviet Russia, government tells scientists what to say.

    oh, wait....

    damn.

    we really are fucked.
  • by Theaetetus (590071) <theaetetus,slashdot&gmail,com> on Sunday December 29, 2002 @12:37PM (#4976818) Homepage Journal
    * First, Bush doesn't suck. Granted I'm a right leaning mid-liner, but that isn't a crime unless I'm in Berkely or San Francisco. ;-)

    Well, you haven't really said anything here about Bush, just about yourself... But then, the "Bush sucks" posts don't say anything about why he sucks, so most of those are equally invalid.
    No, what's more interesting is the stuff about how Bush went AWOL during a war for over a year - potentially an act of treason, how Cheney's accounting scandals have been swept under the rug, etc. Refute those, and we can start discussing Bush's suck-factor.

    * Second, if you believe in global warming, find some real evidence. Yeah there may be an elevated level of CO2 in the air now, but CO2 is a piss poor 'greenhouse gas', methane and water vapor work way better. If there is a global warming trend I'd be inclined to think that it's the sun causing it as there is evidence that Mars is warming, also.

    From the EPA's Global Warming site: [epa.gov]

    A warming trend of about 1F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

    Now, OTOH, what's that mean? Average temperatures have increased slightly, but that could be a natural cyclical trend - records don't go back long enough.
    Rather than saying "find some real evidence" - plenty exists - you should be saying "what does that evidence really mean?"

    Incidentally, on the last Talk of the Nation [totn.org] Science Friday (from NPR), they had a segment on Antarctic science that mentioned global warming studies. Interestingly enough, though parts of the continent are warming, others are cooling, and there's about a 60% cooling trend across the continent.

    Global warming is happening - but we have no idea what that means yet.

    * Thirdly. What's the best way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Condoms or Abstinence? Maybe there was a leftist bias on those pages to begin with and they really do refect more acurately scientific evidence?

    Depends on your definition of "best". What is the surest way to prevent pregnancy? Abstinence. What is the one that most people would be willing to follow? Condoms.
    Look, if what's going on with the Catholic Church is any indication, not even priests can maintain a vow of chastity. To believe that anyone else can is wishful thinking at best and self-delusion at worst.

    People will have sex. Teenagers will have sex. While abstinence would be best, they aren't going to do that. We might be able to get them to compromise and wear condoms, and that is much more preferable to the alternative.

    Similar is dieting - obesity is a huge [pun intended] problem in this country. The obvious solution - eat less, eat more nutritionally, exercise more, etc. is very tough for a lot of people to do. Humans, in general, tend to lack the willpower for self-denial. So, though people know that they're slowly killing themselves, they continue eating Super-sized big mac meals.

    Likewise smoking - anyone who doesn't know at this point that smoking is harmful is an idiot and has been living in a shack for the past sixty years. Nonetheless people still smoke. It takes a whole lot of willpower to change behaviors, particularly when you have to deny yourself immediate gratification - such as the Big Mac, the Marlboro, or the blow job - in exchange for a few possible extra years on your life... at the end, particularly when you don't know if you'll be hit by a bus or drafted and not get to die of natural causes.

    In short, this is why condom use is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs - it's the one people will actually follow.

    -T

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2002 @03:47PM (#4977763)

    A simple solution to one of your problems. [imdb.com]
    Invite said priest over for a friendly dinner to discuss his views. ;-)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2002 @04:44PM (#4977984)

    Can you name the other one?


    I dunno, why don't we ask Godwin?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2002 @06:05PM (#4978311)
    Umm, let me guess, the devil in the White House???
  • by Malcontent (40834) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @10:44PM (#4979390)
    "No, "we" think the two drugs involved, mifepristone and misoprostol, both originated for other uses."

    well yes but were they liberal uses. Are the drugs liberal and are they used to cure liberal diseases. More importantly were they developed by liberal doctors and were they funded by liberal governments and liberal administrations.

    You see the most important thing about drugs is if they are liberal or not. Simply stating facts only clouds the matter. Please refrain from actually refering to facts in all future slashdot posts or I will be forced to call you "liberal".

Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue. - Seneca

Working...