Politicizing Science 124
grape jelly writes "A new website has been created by Rep. Harry A. Waxman, of California, by the name of Politics and Science that accuses the current administration of intentionally manipulating scientific data in order to further its ideology. The site was created as a result of a congressional report (pdf) request by Rep. Waxman, available on his site. A NYTimes article is also available about the report with a response from the administration."
Re:Waxman is as bad (Score:2)
Exactly. Anyone who criticizes this administration has an "agenda" and that alone proves that they are not to be trusted.
Shocking development, government lies. (Score:2)
Re:Shocking development, government lies. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shocking development, government lies. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bush did not lie (Score:2)
Yes. That's right. You heard what I said. What were the terrorists' primary goals? No not to kill many innocent people. Their primary goal was to make America less free. They wouldn't have been successful if it hadn't been for their friend Dubya. All
Re:Shocking development, government lies. (Score:2)
Rule of law and elections (Score:1, Insightful)
Ignoring the "rule of law" like the 30% hardcore leftists that hate Bush so much that they denies that Bush won the last election just because they liked the other guy better?
They think that the Constitutional election process is only OK if it produces a left-wing president like Clinton. If it produces a centrist or right-wing President, it can be ignored at will.
Re:Rule of law and elections (Score:2)
There are many centrists (it ain't just the lefties) who believe that Bush did not win the election but was instead appointed by the Supreme Court. Remember, Gore won more votes nationally than did B
this is something new? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:this is something new? (Score:3, Interesting)
"marijuana makes you violent" came in the 40's
worst case scenario: Mass ignorance and some people get thrown in jail.
Global warming is a myth
worst case scenario: The planet becomes uninhabitable.
Re:this is something new? (Score:1)
Actual scenario: the drug war, billions spent and millions killed
Global warming is a myth
Actual scenario: no effect, probably no effect for 10,000 years, and hey, did the Sumerians pass any laws to curtail global warming?
Re:this is something new? (Score:1)
please ignore if that was sarcasm!
Did the Sumerians release massive quantities of green house gasses into the environment? Did the Sumerians have the ability to measure global temperature variations over a long period of time? Just because people haven't worried about something before doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about it now.
PS: I'm Persian == Sumerian + (sex with a lot of invaders: arabs, monguls, greeks, etc.).
Re:We are not much different from Sumerians. (Score:1)
> listen to Chicken Little and worry without reason.
funny, that's how some of us feel about the president's religion, not to mention his FEAR WORRY FEAR WORRY FEAR rhetoric about THE EVER PRESENT THREAT, terrorism.
Re:President's religion (Score:1)
Well, except he wants everyone to be a good little monotheist or their opinion doesn't count....
As for facts, you mean like that Nigerian Nuke contact Saddam had? Sorry, but whether he's doing it knowingly or not, he's misleading the country.
Re:President's religion (Score:1)
Re:Fake made-up religions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fake made-up religions (Score:2)
Wicca was something made up by some guy about 100 years ago.
When some guys MADE UP Christianity 2000 years ago, Judiasm was already 2000 years old! What makes Christianity more valid than Wicca and not less valid than Judiasm?
Re:President's religion (Score:2)
The president's religion does not matter except that he considers atheists non-citizens and that God speaks to him directly, telling him to invade Iraq and end terrorism.
Re:President's religion (Score:1)
Re:this is something new? (Score:2)
Pollution (Score:3, Insightful)
It might mean that we should worry more about species extinction, habitat destruction, pollution with real toxins, and other environmental issues which get shoved to the back burner when "Global Warming" grabs the headlines.
Re:Pollution (Score:1, Flamebait)
What chu talkin' bout? (Score:2)
""But to extend your analogy," What analogy did I make? I don't recall comparing anything except in my SIG.
Re:What chu talkin' bout? (Score:2)
Re:Pollution (Score:2)
(see http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,
how did you think we controlled tuberculosis before the "marvels of modern science"? Praying? Hugs and bunnies?
Re:Pollution (Score:2)
Re:Can't do that (Score:1)
Re:this is something new? (Score:4, Informative)
No, but what is new with this administration is the extent of creation of policy based upon and filtered through pre-determined morality and financial interest. My letter to Sen. Waxman follows:
Regarding your website: Politics and Science. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscienc
As a scientist beginning my career, I can certainly applaud your efforts to create such a page. We need more science education for the general public to ensure that people can reach appropriate decisions based upon factual and unbiased information provided by the scientific community.
There will always be spin in politics and science, but the goal should be a search for the truth unencumbered by political ideologies or financial influence. Maintenance of this pure environment for scientific research is untenable, but the approach the Bush administration has taken has skewed scientific efforts in the name of pre-determined scientific results filtered through this administrations morality. Political decisions that guide the course of this country should not be made upon unilateral priorities. Rather, they need to be made through rigorous application of question, study and answer.
Efforts to educate the scientific and lawmaking community through proper scientific procedure and questioning along with public education and critical thinking requires publicly funded peer-reviewed science. Your staff has done an admirable job in preparing this site based upon these principles and I would encourage the dissemination of these efforts to other lawmakers via a more intimate relationship with the scientific community. Ultimately, I would like to see in government fewer scientific cabals and more open discussions of current issues by a rotating group of scientists who advise this countries policy makers.
Best Regards,
Re:this is something new? (Score:2)
Re:Everything becoming political (Score:1)
Why do they bother being separate, anymore. It would be much more efficient to merge the republican and democrat parties. The new party would be called "Us" and all other parties would be merged into a new party called "Them".
Then it would be more clearly a matter of "Us" positioning themselves into a cycle of gathering more and more power over their constituencies.
Re:Everything becoming political (Score:2)
Re:Everything becoming political (Score:1)
Only on the surface. Either party's policies result in bigger government, political entrenchment, and institutional mediocrity. Whether it is a failing welfare program or a failing pork barrel defense project makes no difference in the long term.
Re:Everything becoming political (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Everything becoming political (Score:1)
I agree with this, if the current administration's republicans are excluded. Oddly allocated tax cuts in spite of a half a trillion per year budget deficit, highly debated foreign military interventions, and domestic spy programs don't sound like they mesh well with the Libertarian agenda.
I look at "defense pork" as a lot less damaging as "Welfare pork".
This is true, but both are wasteful and ultimate
Re:Everything becoming political (Score:2)
For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:4, Funny)
looks like a run of the mill democrat stooge
Waxman, a stooge for the democrats, is a rarity these days.
Contributors to the Republican seem to be able to afford to buy a lot more stooges.
Re:For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:3, Informative)
More important than whether the candidate is Republican or Democrat, is that incumbents tend to win [opensecrets.org].
And that incumbents tend to get more of whatever money it is that is being given.
[Your arguement is diluted by using emotional labeling like "stolen", "fat cats", and sarcasm "shock, shock". Leave such tactics to the professional demagogues.]
Re:For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:2)
incumbents tend to win, if they are the best qualified canidate, why shouldn't t
Re:Why incumbents win (Score:2)
I'm much more in favor of individuals making unlimited donations but no group donations at all, no NRA, no labor unions, no Greenpeace, and no Halibutron, since they can't vote, they should not be able to fund canidates, but that might get some people in a tizzy on both sides of the asile and Nader wouldn't like it either.
I'd agree to a term limit amendment if it went something like this..
Re:Why incumbents win (Score:2)
And no churches, handing out "voter guides" to their armies of obedient sheep. If they're going to enter the political sphere that way, they can start paying taxes like the rest of us.
Re:Why incumbents win (Score:2)
Re:For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:2)
Looks like I thought wrong.
Re:For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:2)
Re:For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:1)
Re:For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:2)
When Science, Nature and the Lancet all agree that something is rotten in the state of Denmark the American public would do well to listen -- regardless of the political affiliation of those in the White House.
While I understand your disagreement with most Democrats, their policies, and practices; Waxman's staf
Re:For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:2)
Perhaps because that's the one example that comes readily to mind rather than a pattern of dissembling and deceit so rampant that even the major scientific journals feel compelled to comment on the trend.
-j
Re:For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:1, Troll)
Re:For those of you who don't know waxman.... (Score:2)
Key word "allowing"... you didn't say that he coerced them to do it, which is the charge against the current administration.
Well, really (Score:2)
This attitude is what's scary about the world today, isn't it? We're being lied to and nobody gives a damn. I haven't read the article, but the apathy is appalling.
Re:Well, really (Score:2)
What would you expect (Score:1, Insightful)
The conflicts of interest in the current administration are so transparent, that anyone suprised by any of this literally needs a slap to set them back in reality.
Re:You bigot (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, rather, it shouldn't matter. But it does. Look at the areas of science that the report alleges has been misstated and/or slanted. Note the bent towards morality/reproductive issues like the impact of abortion on breast cancer, stem-cell research, condom use and abstinence-only education. Clinton was a Baptist but I've never heard anyone allege that Clinton attempted to hide good science that disagreed with his base.
Bush is abusing our nation's scientific infrastructure to push
Re:You bigot (Score:2)
I am not a bigot. The president has publicly made moral judgements about people (lately about gays and lesbians), which is reprehensible, given that he is the president of a country with a constitution that dictates separation of church and state. The problem is that he himself is flagrantly bigoted against people that don't meet his own moral criteria.
This is the United States of America for cripes sake. This is an issue of personal freedom from religous persecution and freedom to conduct ou
Re:You bigot (Score:1)
How so? There is no ambiguity about this administration's religious alignment.
Re:You bigot (Score:1)
Only a small subset of those things considered moral can be argued as such without relying on religion (i.e., is it much easier to form a religion-independent argument about murder than it is for homosexuality).
The president's public statements exhibit arbitrary moral judgements that ware formulated
Re:You bigot (Score:2)
Have we really gotten to the point where we want an amoral President?
Inevitable (Score:4, Interesting)
All information will be politicized, not just what comes from scientific investigation.
The only defense for scientists is to continue to pursue the truth, postulate hypotheses, and to ask questions and get answers about the validity of those hypotheses.
Honestly, what this world needs is less politics in science and more science in politics.
Politics is so heavily weighted in emotion and personality that I hold out little hope of rational and critical thought making any more than a stage appearance in government.
article text (Score:3, Informative)
ASHINGTON, Aug. 7 -- The Bush administration persistently manipulates scientific data to serve its ideology and protect the interests of its political supporters, a report by the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform says.
The 40-page report, which was prepared for Representative Henry A. Waxman, the committee's ranking Democrat, accused the administration of compromising the scientific integrity of federal institutions that monitor food and medicine, conduct health research, control disease and protect the environment.
On many topics, including global warming and sex education, the administration "has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings," the report said.
"The administration's political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the president, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered Web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications and the gagging of scientists," the report added.
The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, dismissed the report. He contended that its sponsor, Mr. Waxman, who is widely known for his aggressive inquiry into the tobacco industry, was seeking to score political points.
"This administration looks at the facts, and reviews the best available science based on what's right for the American people," Mr. McClellan said. "The only one who is playing politics about science is Congressman Waxman. His report is riddled with distortion, inaccuracies and omissions."
Some of the examples from the report's 21 subject areas have already been reported in the media. They include the Environmental Protection Agency's decision last year to delete a section on global warming in its comprehensive report on the state of the environment and President Bush's overstatement of the number of stem cell lines available for research under controls imposed by the administration.
The report's authors say federal agencies have jeopardized scientific integrity in many ways, including stacking scientific advisory committees with unqualified officials or industry representatives, blocking publication of findings that could harm corporate interests and defending controversial decisions with misleading information.
With respect to sex education, the report said, the Bush administration has advanced what the report described as an unproven "abstinence only" agenda and abolished an initiative at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that listed scientifically validated safe-sex techniques that included using condoms.
On agricultural pollution, the Agriculture Department has issued tight controls on government scientists seeking to publish information that could have an adverse impact on industry, the report said. It cited the case of a microbiologist, James Zahn, who was denied permission to publish findings on the dangers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria near hog farms in the Midwest.
On the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the report said that Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, a firm advocate of drilling for oil in the region, misrepresented to Congress her agency's scientific opinion on how drilling would affect the region's caribou population. She told lawmakers most of the caribou calving occurred outside the refuge; her scientists said the opposite was true.
James P Hogan does it better. (Score:2)
For better coverage of both science-for-political-gain AND the politics-OF-science, check out James P. Hogan's non-fiction books and his bulletin board [jamesphogan.com] for some very eye-opening insight into these types of things.
Re:James P Hogan does it better. (Score:4, Informative)
I did check out the website. He seems to be among a group of people these days who want to disbelieve any scientific result that is generally accepted. Practically all immune researchers believe HIV causes AIDS? They must be wrong! The establishment didn't accept Velikovsky? He must have been right! This attitude appears to come from an UNcritical distrust of authority. Just being dismissed by the authorities doesn't make an idea worthy of serious consideration. They may well have laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Re:James P Hogan does it better. (Score:2)
Re:James P Hogan does it better. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:James P Hogan does it better. (Score:2)
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/archives/catastro
it takes an impressive degree of scientific illiteracy to fall for this kind of shit. The earth is only a few thousands of years old? Biblical events were caused by a comet bursting from Jupiter, almost hitting the earth and then turning into Venus?
How can you believe anything someone this credulous says?
This is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Today, it's actually a necessity. You can find a study to say whatever you want; depending on the model, experimental methods, statistical methods, and a dozen other variables. People who act on research must filter through what is discovered, and decide what they think is true.
There are studies that prove global warming is currently killing thousands, and others that prove that it never exsisted, is a natural process, or is being/has been reversed. DTT is a killer, and the guy that did the study did it wrong/no he didn't. There is/is not a "gay gene".
Adminstration has to filter through these reports and determine which ones are correct, because they can't all be correct. Is it surprising that they would pick the ones that best fit their agenda? Even when you take good advisors into account, these advisors must be selected by the administration. Who's best? How does the administration pick their advisors? The same way they would pick which study to believe: Based on what they already think is true, or whatever best fits into their perception of how the world works. No matter how open minded and unbiased they (the admin) tries to be, they won't be, can't be unbiased. They will still lean towards what they had previously believed. And they won't be easily swayed, because any data that comes out contradicting what they believe can be countered by some other piece of (just as accurate) data that was gathered under slightly different conditions.
I guess the only real way around it would be to have advisory panels staffed by the scientists with the opposing views. Even then, though...many, if not most, scientists are severely lacking in interpersonal skills (I say this as a scientist severely lacking in interpersonal skills), so those panels would get little done, especially when several of the people in the room have been butting heads for decades.
My sig seems even more appropriate than usual today...
Waxman = more government manipulation (Score:1, Informative)
Realize that this describes this biased report by Waxman (who is also a member of the govenrment). Remember that Waxman would have never made such charges of Clinton no matter how much science manipulating they did. Waxman, after all, went way out on a limb to exonerate Clinton of actual crimes he committed (just because Clinton was a fellow Democrat).
After the scandal why bother with NYT? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Politicized Science (Score:2)
Re: That's ludicrous (Score:2)
> > "this President has been particularly bad"
> No, he is a lot better than Clinton. I know that is not saying much, but at least this President is helping saving the government embarassment by preventing the government from releasing more bad studies (like the phony EPA study about mythical "global warming").
Yeah, here's his latest attempt [msn.com] to save us from the bonds of ignorance.
Science politicizes itself all the time (Score:1, Troll)
For example, look at the recent editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine [nejm.org]. I quote:
"The editors of the Journal will do our part by seeking out highly meritorious manuscripts that describe research using embryonic stem cells. When treatments derived from this technology emerge, we will publish the papers that describe them. As a physician who has cared for patients who suffered
Because conservatives are wrong about most things (Score:2, Insightful)
They rely on people having factually incorrect data on global warming, birth control, etc. A Scientific worldview and a conservate worldview are as incompatable today as they were in the days of Galieo and Darwin.
Re:Because conservatives are wrong about most thin (Score:2, Insightful)
Liberals come out against conservatives. "Science" rarely does, as it is not a policy matter.
"They rely on people having factually incorrect data on global warming, birth control, etc"
At this time, the conservatives tend to hold more to the real science on global warming (instead of silly fad "theories" in which someone has a political axe to grind so they make up "we are warming the earth" fict
Re:Because conservatives are wrong about most thin (Score:1)
But scientific data supports liberals more than conservatives.
At this time, the conservatives tend to hold more to the real science on global warming
I hope you're kidding. Scientists constiently say that global warming is real. Did you read the linked article? Scientists who say global wariming is real and is a problem literally outnumber the naysayers by more than one thousand to one.
Birh control is not a science controversy. It is a political o
Re:Because conservatives are wrong about most thin (Score:2)
This is to much a value generality, like "liberals are better than conservatives".
I'm sure that the average "liberal" is more science-supported than the "conservative" who happens to be a Creation Science fundamentalist. However, the average "conservative" is more science-supported than a "liberal" who happens to believe in GAIA theories (or the caller I heard on Larry King one night who said earthquakes are the Earth getting back at humans
Re:Because conservatives are wrong about most thin (Score:4, Insightful)
*applause*. I'm reminded of a .sig where someone observed the following:
There aren't too many people on the left or right) that would argue that. A leftie might phrase it differently - speaking of "heartless Republicans" and "those striving for social justice" - but would likely agree with the point.
The odd part is that if you replace "left" with "right", and "economic" with "social", you still end up with a statement that both sides would take as a compliment.
Re:Because conservatives are wrong about most thin (Score:1)
Well, according to Christians, sometimes virgins have babies, so there's a failure rate associated with abstinance, too.
*ducks flying Bible*
Re:Because conservatives are wrong about most thin (Score:2)
We are warming the earth.[1]
There are three fundamental questions - does the earth regulate its temperature, is it regulating its temperature well enough to keep up with how fast we're warming it, and if not, is that dangerous in the long term.
Your answers to those three questions might differ from mine, but saying that it's "fiction" that we are warming the earth is asinine.
[1] Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Picking and Choosing Issues == Political (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, right, because dems are anti-nuke and this site only serves to pick political fights.
If someone wants to put up a site citing real science on the litany of hypocritical positions politicians take, great, but let's call this thing what it is: politics.
Source (Score:2)
It might have been intentional but for what it's worth, your post doesn't have much to do with real science, either. Where's your source on this?
I'm not really too concerned about whether you're right or not, because you might be. But what you've said doesn't mean much, because radiation is simply the name for a particular metho
Re:Source (Score:2)
The main sources of radiation released from coal combustion include not only uranium and thorium but also daughter products produced by the decay of these isotopes, such as radium, radon, polonium, bismuth, and lead. Although not a decay product, naturally occurring radioactive potassium-40 is also a significant contributor. The population
Re:Source (Score:2)
But to your point, my comment wasn't intended to be good science - it was an editorial comment on Slashdot for pete's sake - my point was that by picking a small sample of issues that are pet peeves of the Senator, the site in question is bad science, and thinkly veiled politics. My example was to illustrate that policy is rarely influenced by science - usually religion, emotion, and politics are far more infulential factors.