Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

More Accusations of Scientific Abuse by the Bush Administration 201

Posted by michael from the piling-on dept.
Saeed al-Sahaf writes "Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists released new evidence that the Bush Administration continues to suppress and distort scientific knowledge and undermine scientific advisory panels. Of course we're not talking about such subjective issues like stem cell research which Bush objects to on religious grounds. Here we are talking about money. The cases discussed in this story detail incidents of suppression and distortion of scientific knowledge on issues ranging from mountaintop removal strip mining to endangered species such as wild Salmon in the Pacific Northwest."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Accusations of Scientific Abuse by the Bush Administration More

More Accusations of Scientific Abuse by the Bush Administration

Comments Filter:

  • Two points (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @02:36PM (#9689079) Journal
    1) While I appreciate Minister al-Sahaf's acknowledgement that the issues around stem cells are matter of subjectivity, not a science-vs-faith issue like evolution, framing the debate in terms of "religious grounds" isn't all that much better. It's a question of ethics, like other bioethics issues.

    2) The Union of Concerned Scientists is a wildly partisan organization, that leans heavily on getting large numbers of scientists to sign their statements and then acting as though that represents an informed expert opinion by the signatories. That doesn't invalidate any particular point they make, of course, but I'd like to examine these accusations on a case by case basis, rather than get excited about "x scientists, including y Nobel Laureates" signing another one of their screeds.

    • Re:Two points (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Glog ( 303500 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @02:45PM (#9689218)
      To be precise there were 48 Nobel laureates who singed that document mentioned in the article. You seem to imply that such people would put their signature on any document just so that the annoying organization bugging them to sign it would get out of their hair. I do believe this time it's different and they actually mean it. When will you start believing Bush needs to go? If only for the damage he's done to science and ecology.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • To be precise there were 48 Nobel laureates who singed that document mentioned in the article.

        Is a singed document slightly less burnt that a flamed document?

        Regardless, they must have really hated the precepts contained to give it such a snubbing. The Union of Concerned Scientists must be miffed at the chastizing they received from all these Nobel laureates.

    • Re:Two points (Score:5, Insightful)

      by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @02:54PM (#9689307) Journal
      I find the "suppression" of stem-cell research acusation particularly interesting. The administration did not ban stem-cell research...they simply banned federal funding of it. If stem-cell research is so great and promising, then let private industry fund the research. After all, they're the ones who are going to make money off it.

      Too often millions of tax dollars are spent in R&D at government labs to develop a new drug, which is then licensed for pennies to a pharmacutical company, which then charges consumers (that is, the taxpayers who paid to develop it in the first place) $100/dose. Shouldn't liberals be happy we're ending this "corporate welfare?"

      • Re:Two points (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @03:02PM (#9689407)
        No because probably a good amount of liberals think the government should be spending money to do that itself and then providing those drugs itself for cheap or free. I'd have to say I agree with the argument as far as public health goes. There are lots of things that involve heavy initial investment for which there isn't necessarily a large opportunity for profit (for instance, studying the bad health affects of junk foods isn't something that the junk food industry or cholesterol lowering drug pharmaceuticals are going to invest in). Why spend all that money on something new when you can take an existing drug, change it ever so slightly and squeeze another 5 years of profits out of it? If all else fails simply brand everything as Generic Anxiety Disorder and pump out some drug for that.
        • No because probably a good amount of liberals think the government should be spending money to do that itself and then providing those drugs itself for cheap or free.

          Well then it'll take more than an executive order or a policy shift to make that happen. The United States is not a socialist system, in which the government owns the means of production. The government does not manufacture or sell products (except for postage stamps, I guess), so even if the government DID fund this research, it would only
          • Not to argue necessarily with your point but:

            Why wouldn't company A and company B both make the independent rational decision to not invent a cure and to indefinitely sell treatment? Isn't that also likely? Even if they did capture the market for the cure, that market would evaporate (more or less) once everybody was cured.
            • Currently only Company A has a management drug. Company B could decide to research either a management drug, or a cure. If they research a management drug instead, they'd be competing with Company A. If they research a cure, they'd demolish Company A. The market would not actually dry up, as people would continue to develop the disease...it's just that their customers would be one-time customers, instead of repeat customers. They could also possibly charge a much greater amount for a cure, rather than

      • Re:Two points (Score:4, Insightful)

        by magefile ( 776388 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @03:30PM (#9689779)
        The problem is, the institutions large enough (rich enough) to pay to create new stem cell lines are afraid of having money taken away from other (non-stem-cell) projects, as well as the stem cell projects they already have (research continues; it's just crippled). It's like how some organizations don't want to offer certain types of sex ed counseling (definitely abortion; I believe also HIV and STD/birth control) overseas because that'd lose their status as a "humanitarian aid organization that is eligible for financial aid".

        Besides, do you have any fscking idea how many people stem cell research would help? Pretty much anyone with an enzyme or hormonal deficiency or chemical imbalance (and that includes tons of diseases - diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's). Pharmacos will still have to do expensive research to target stem cell treatments to specific diseases. But as of now, it's too risky for them to pay for *all* stem cell research - that's an incredibly broad category.

        • Re:Two points (Score:5, Interesting)

          by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:12PM (#9690282) Journal
          The administration did not say that non-stem-cell research funding will be cut from any organization that conducts stem-cell research, only that the government will not fund stem-cell research.

          Yes, I understand how many people stem-cell research will help, and I'm all for this research. However, I'm not in favor of the government paying for it. What will happen is that taxpayers will fund the research, and then drug companies will take the result of this research and gouge the public that paid for it to begin with. Instead, let the drug companies pay for it themselves. True, it's very expensive. However, a single drug company does not have to fund the entire scope of stem-cell research, only the part of interest to them. As they stand to reap enormous profits for developing new drugs or treatments based on stem-cell research, they should pay the costs, not me.

          • Re:Two points (Score:4, Insightful)

            by dondelelcaro ( 81997 ) <don@donarmstrong.com> on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @06:55PM (#9691771) Homepage Journal
            What will happen is that taxpayers will fund the research, and then drug companies will take the result of this research and gouge the public that paid for it to begin with.
            You seem to be assuming that the majority of the research that is being curtailed is that of major drug companies. Not so. Most major drug companies are quite capable of conducting such experiments on their own without government funding. What this curtails is the ability of Universities to conduct such research, which will end up with the situation that you are concerned about actually coming to fruition.

            If the use of government funding to create IP which was then turned around and sold back to consumers is a big deal, then the proper approach is to curtail the IP rights stemming from such funding, rather than stopping the research itself. Not surprisingly, neither the Democrats or the Republicans seem to be interested in controlling the licensing of IP stemming from government funding.
          • I'm curious. If Uncle Sam finally wised up and created a state health plan would your opinion of this research be different?

      • Re:Two points (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mcelrath ( 8027 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @05:17PM (#9690936) Homepage
        It is in the public interest to have as much health and drug-related information in the public domain as possible. Compare this to the human genome project: do you want your own genes patented by some other company? If growing replacement organs from stem cells were made viable, it's in the public interest for it to be in the public domain or licensed as widely as possible. More people get treatments faster that way.

        If public research were licensed to any comer, no company could charge $100 per dose because they would be quickly undercut. Such patents should be held in a public trust, or by a university which licenses them to industry for manufacture under some compulsory licensing arrangement because they received federal funds. Personally, I think all publicly funded research should end up in the public domain. I know the scenario I describe is not exactly how it always works with taxpayer-funded research.

        -- Bob

      • Re:Two points (Score:3, Insightful)

        by capologist ( 310783 )

        If stem-cell research is so great and promising, then let private industry fund the research. After all, they're the ones who are going to make money off it.

        Keep in mind the difference between science (knowledge of the laws of nature) and technology (practical application of that knowledge).

        Patent law can give a private entity intellectual "ownership" of a technology. This provides a capitalist incentive to develop technology.

        Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, can not be owned by anyone. Once disc

    • Re:Two points (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jilles ( 20976 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @03:09PM (#9689510) Homepage
      About point 2, this style of politics seems to have replaced reason and common sense in the US. Both parties know most people will never get a chance to examine evidence in detail so instead they depend on making lots of noise in the media.

      But still, when a large group of respected, smart and well educated people supports these accusations I think that is more credible than the white house telling us everything is fine. Getting Nobel prize winners to support this means that a few very smart people made a balanced judgement and came to the conclusion that they wanted to support this.

      It takes some enormous wisdom or stupidity to dismiss such a thing. I'm afraid there's plenty of stupid americans who will just do that. I'm as pessimistic to believe that the current US government is actually so stupid that they actually believe they know better.

      • Re:Two points (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Otter ( 3800 )
        Getting Nobel prize winners to support this means that a few very smart people made a balanced judgement and came to the conclusion that they wanted to support this.

        Sure, that's precisely the impression the UCS intends you to take away. I'm extremely skeptical about it being the case, though.

        You can put it down to my being a "stupid American", but my cynicism comes from familiarity with the politics and mentalities in biomedical research, not from ignorance of them. The public face the stem cell researcher

        • Re:Two points (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jilles ( 20976 )
          We're talking about a list of specific issues that go beyond just biomedical research, signed by a number of scientists including some who have won a nobel prize. I'm normally sceptical too but this is simply too much too simply dismiss as propaganda. I'm well aware how the conservative right has dominated the political agenda the past few years and how it has effected society in numerous ways.

    • Re:Two points (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hal9000 ( 80652 )
      Name one argument against stem cell research that's not based on religious views.

      • Re:Two points (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Atzanteol ( 99067 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @03:49PM (#9689991) Homepage
        Because a belief is religious in nature, does not mean it is wrong.
      • A similar argument (that embryo == life, life == inviolable, therefore embryo == inviolable) could potentially be held by atheists as a moral argument rather than a religious one.
      • There's no argument against stem cell research in general, just the specific research that uses stem cells from embryos.

        And arguing against destroying embryos doesn't have be be religion-based... it can simply be ethics.

        This is, by the way, the only stem cell research that the government won't fund... not all stem cell research in general.

    • Re:Two points (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcelrath ( 8027 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @03:47PM (#9689969) Homepage
      When the original article came out the conservative media tried to paint the Union of Concerned Scientists as a partisan organization, you seem to have fallen into that trap hook, line, and sinker.

      Do you honestly think that statements from a scientific body are more partisan than those from a political body? We scientists strive to present the government and public with the best data we can and allow the politics to occur elsewhere. There is no room for politics in science. In science one can make a big name for oneself by proving that the accepted dogma is wrong. Ideology cannot survive in such an environment, unless facts are suppressed.

      Read the article(s). Most points are not about ethics. This is about ignoring scientific evidince that disagrees with the administration's ideology, placing industry representatives in positions that are a clear conflict of interest, and suppressing and editing scientific reports after the fact. (My favorite is increasing the amount of lead allowed in drinking water, placing a lead industry representative on the committee responsible, and suppressing the report indicating that low levels of lead are more harmful to children than previously thought)

      This is not about ethics. It is about misleading the american people. We ignore this warning at our own peril.

      -- Bob

      • Re:Two points (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Otter ( 3800 )
        Do you honestly think that statements from a scientific body are more partisan than those from a political body?

        That's just silly -- the UCS is absolutely not a "scientific body", conspiracy theories about "the conservative media" or no. It is absolutely a partisan, politicized group promoting a certain techno-political viewpoint. There's nothing wrong with that, except for presenting it as an agenda-free group of scientists speaking on their own areas of expertise.

        I agree with the concerns about manipulat

        • Re:Two points (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BorgCopyeditor ( 590345 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @09:26PM (#9692864)
          Two signs of partisanship are an unwillingness to debate issues and a change of focus to the supposed character of whoever is delivering a certain message. You've demonstrated both in your various posts in this thread, presumably because all you have to say is "I'm suspicious." Be as suspicious as you like; the UCS isn't getting rich or getting elected on the basis of their message, so I remain more concerned with the evident motives for bias that the Bush administration doesn't even deign to defend.
      • When the original article came out the conservative media tried to paint the Union of Concerned Scientists as a partisan organization, you seem to have fallen into that trap hook, line, and sinker.
        Do you honestly think that statements from a scientific body are more partisan than those from a political body?

        And like most, you believe one must actually be a scientist to belong to this "scientific body".

        From their become a member page:


        If you care about clean energy, clean vehicles, global security, food
        • Yet those who signed the list are all scientists, and many of them not members of UCS.

        • Re:Two points (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mcelrath ( 8027 )

          This is obviously a political organization that happens to include scientists.

          This is driving me nuts! WHY is there a tacit assumption that before accepting facts one must evaluate the political bias of the messenger? These are scientific issues being presented by scientists. Why should their political bias matter? If there is a question on fact that is disagreed upon, say so! If any of the things in this report did not happen, say so! But don't call people liars because they belong to the "wron

      • Re:Two points (Score:4, Insightful)

        by some guy I know ( 229718 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @06:09AM (#9695053) Homepage
        There is no room for politics in science.
        A more acurate statement would be "There should be no room for politics in science.".
        Unfortunately, politics plays a large part in scientific research, even that not sponsered by governments.
        For example, in academia, politics plays a large part in applications for and awarding of tenure, grants, etc.
        This is because politics and money seem to go together.
        Only independently wealthy individuals (and hobbyists) can ignore politics when deciding what lines of research to persue.
    • Evolution vs Creation is a Faith vs Faith issue or a Science vs Science depending on outlook. To presume otherwise is to make an initial bias which is virtually unrecoverable.

    • Re:Two points (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GOD_ALMIGHTY ( 17678 ) <curt.johnson@gmail.NETBSDcom minus bsd> on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:47PM (#9690651) Homepage
      1) While I appreciate Minister al-Sahaf's acknowledgement that the issues around stem cells are matter of subjectivity, not a science-vs-faith issue like evolution, framing the debate in terms of "religious grounds" isn't all that much better. It's a question of ethics, like other bioethics issues.

      The banned stem cell research is a matter of hypocrisy and partisan pandering at the expense of science. The banned research in question uses blastocyts (sp?) which is simply an egg fertilized in a petri dish and never embedded in a womb. Banning research using this method is inconsistent since the same practice is used at fertility clinics all over the country. If there is an ethical problem using this method for stem cell research, then it should be equally unethical to use it in fertility clinics. It isn't even a faith vs. science issue like evolution, cause this is even more bogus.

      2) The Union of Concerned Scientists is a wildly partisan organization, that leans heavily on getting large numbers of scientists to sign their statements and then acting as though that represents an informed expert opinion by the signatories. That doesn't invalidate any particular point they make, of course, but I'd like to examine these accusations on a case by case basis, rather than get excited about "x scientists, including y Nobel Laureates" signing another one of their screeds.

      And which issue was it that you have ever disagreed with these people on? I've been following them for a long time, and although the right likes to complain every time they say something, I've yet to see any refutation of their assertions that was worth the paper it was printed on. If you're going to up make smear attacks against an organization like this, you'll need to back it up with some references. Their board of directors has more accomplishments and standing than any of the detractors I've ever heard.

      How is the UCS partisan? They'd lambast a Dem president who did what Bush is currently doing. Of course, we all know the must have just used their undercover Democratic operatives with Chinese contribution cash to go twist the arms of all these scientists so they'd sign on that the Bush administration is using real research that effects this country as political fodder. Attacking the UCS for this tactic is extremely stupid. Does consensus count for nothing now? Should we ignore majority consensus among voters for presidential candidates now? Oh, wait.....
      • The banned stem cell research is a matter of hypocrisy and partisan pandering at the expense of science. The banned research in question uses blastocyts (sp?) which is simply an egg fertilized in a petri dish and never embedded in a womb. Banning research using this method is inconsistent since the same practice is used at fertility clinics all over the country. If there is an ethical problem using this method for stem cell research, then it should be equally unethical to use it in fertility clinics. It isn
        • Some of us *do* believe that in-vitro methods that result in dozens of unused embryos are immoral as a method of fertility therapy.

          Fine, go protest fertility clinics then. I was pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of stopping a method for research while it's commonplace in another well established industry. If you think something is immoral, that's your choice. This country doesn't allow you to force your vision of morality upon anyone else. Unless you can demonstrate a state interest in preventing someone
    • This isn't about ethics, this is about the administration ignoring data.
    • So where is the "We love Bush" list from the Union of Unconcerned Scientists? Are you telling me Bush can't find some wildly partisan PhDs to tell us everything is easy-peasy?

  • Snore... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bluesman ( 104513 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @02:44PM (#9689205) Homepage
    When the Union of Concerned Economists starts bashing Bush, then I'll be worried.

    First of all, blaming the "Bush administration" for the actions of many varied government agencies is a bit disingenous. Does anyone suppose the FDA takes daily orders from the White House? Our government just doesn't work like that.

    Second, what [these particular] scientists seem to lack is a sense of perspective. There are no solutions to real-world problems. There are only trade-offs. Sure, it would be great to have perfectly clean water, but at what point is "clean enough?" How much effort do you spend saving one endangered species?

    If your answer to any of these is "more!" then you haven't considered that our society, government, companies and individuals can only spend so much money and effort. Spending it all on one area leaves other, possibly more important areas unattended to.

    Science is about finding ideal solutions. Politics, and economics, is about managing a finite number of resources to accomplish things. Yes, it hurts when you recommend that a rare swan be saved and nobody listens, but it's likely you don't have any clue what the trade-off would be.

    • Re:Snore... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wanerious ( 712877 )
      First of all, blaming the "Bush administration" for the actions of many varied government agencies is a bit disingenous. Does anyone suppose the FDA takes daily orders from the White House? Our government just doesn't work like that.
      Well, if you read the article regarding emergency contraception (the Plan B pill), it seems that it is indeed the way the government now works.

    • Re:Snore... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @03:10PM (#9689526) Homepage Journal

      Yes, it hurts when you recommend that a rare swan be saved and nobody listens, but it's likely you don't have any clue what the trade-off would be.

      Your point is valid, that we do not possess precise information about the trade-offs of certain decisions (eg, continue logging in old-growth forests vs. effect on those ecosystems). But whitewashing the language of critical reports is not going to further the cause of improving the precision of what we know. The contrary is true.

      The main problem is not just that advocates of one particular choice (usually involving the economic well-being of ME and MY_INDUSTRY trading off against some more diffuse, hard-to-measure and potentially severe long-term costs to the public) have great influence on policy-making through financial channels, but that these advocates are attempting to actually bias the raw reports that would potentially improve the situation about things we're trying to find out about.

      Don't get me wrong: this kind of strong-arm advocacy would be just as bad done from the left as from the right (which just happens to be where it is happening now).

      For example, although I tend to agree with a policy that is somewhat leftward of the current U.S. federal government, that does not mean I would condone policy makers attempting to whitewash the trade-offs that went counter to my preferred policy.

      For example, an economic impact statement concluding that the livelihood and economic well-being of loggers and their families would be severely impacted by an abrupt and total moratorium on old-growth logging should be evaluated as a data point. Advocates of a moratorium should not whitewash the language, watering down the conclusions in an effort to promote their cause.

      Likewise, people advocating a rape of the environment and "removal of burdensome red-tape regulatory bureaucracy" should not try to whitewash the language of scientific reports.

      It reflects poorly on the methods and character of the policy makers, and it cheapens and sets back the cause of dispassionate scientific study that we so desperately need to help in formulating rational policy.

    • Re:Snore... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GOD_ALMIGHTY ( 17678 ) <curt.johnson@gmail.NETBSDcom minus bsd> on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @05:04PM (#9690830) Homepage
      First of all, blaming the "Bush administration" for the actions of many varied government agencies is a bit disingenous. Does anyone suppose the FDA takes daily orders from the White House? Our government just doesn't work like that.

      Son, sit down and let me explain something to you....

      The UCS is attacking the Bush administration, because (and the articles reference this) the Bush administration is directly telling agencies to put policy in place that ignores the scientific facts.

      Second, what [these particular] scientists seem to lack is a sense of perspective. There are no solutions to real-world problems. There are only trade-offs. Sure, it would be great to have perfectly clean water, but at what point is "clean enough?" How much effort do you spend saving one endangered species?

      You're so ignorant of this case it's not funny. Bush is allowing power plants to dump higher levels of mercury into water supplies for starters. The Bush administration is rolling back environmental protections anywhere and everywhere it allows some business to make a buck, especially RNC contributors. This isn't some nitpicking little lefties handwringing over some endangered swan. This is a wholesale assault on our health and safety. We're not talking about perfectly clean water, we're talking about water that causes massive increases in birth defects. And guess what, contaminated water doesn't wind up in rich neighborhoods where they can afford to take care of expensive birth defects, it happens in poor ones, where people don't know any better. And what happens when half the kids in the trailer park turn out retards cause of the mercury? You pay for it in higher taxes and social costs. Unless you want some eugenics along with your laissez faire environmental policy, it's going to wind up costing you way more to let pollution go than it does to regulate it.

      The progressive movement (modern lefties, Clinton Third Way folks and all) believes in regulating business and green environmental policies because the others just hide the cost. You may think you're getting cheap stuff out of this, or the economy will do better, but it will wind up costing you more in the long run.

      The only people who are being unreasonable in this situation are the people on the right. But don't believe me, go do some freaking research. Quit trying to be so non-partisan, the Bush administration have demonstrated that they are irresponsible and incompetent time and again. They don't deserve your benefit of the doubt, everytime anyone gives it to them, it turns out to be a bad idea (i.e. War in Iraq).

      • Head in the sand (Score:2, Insightful)

        by orim ( 583920 )
        "You may think you're getting cheap stuff out of this, or the economy will do better, but it will wind up costing you more in the long run."

        AMEN BROTHER. If there is anything I've seen in the republican party it is a complete blindness for the future. Environmental policy is just one place this is evident.

        Consider also their foreign policy which consists of dropping as many bombs as quickly as possible. In the short run, yes, it'll quiet the world. However, the damage done to the reputation of the US in t
        • Consider also their foreign policy which consists of dropping as many bombs as quickly as possible. In the short run, yes, it'll quiet the world. However, the damage done to the reputation of the US in the world will probably not be repaired in the next 2 decades.

          As opposed to the Clinton era foreign policy, which was to pretend that lobbing a few cruise missiles now and then would "make America safer", when all it really did was embolden the Islamic militants by giving them the impression that the US is
    • So your point is: We can't have truely clean water, so let's just dump everything in there without further thought.

  • That's not all (Score:5, Insightful)

    by benploni ( 125649 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @03:13PM (#9689570) Journal
    Check this out:
    White House Tries to Rein In Scientists [yahoo.com]

    Remember when the Arab world led scientific thought? They invented and led math, geometry, an alphabet, astronomy, engineering, etc. Then the fundies took over. Arab versions of Bush and Pat Robertson.

    • Fundamentalism had nothing to do with it. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Fished ( 574624 ) <amphigory@gmail . c om> on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @03:25PM (#9689719)
      Fundamentalism had nothing to do with the fall of Arab culture. In fact, Islamic fundamentalism is more or less a twentieth century invention, whereas Islamic culture lost its "edge" around the time of the Renaissance. Rather, the fall of Arab culture had a lot to do with a society and an economy that was utterly dependent on constant expansion to maintain itself. When no more expansion was available (thanks to geographical boundaries for the most part) the culture began to go into decline.
  • from The White House [ostp.gov] where the Director of the OST, I can't think of a better word than 'debunks' the hystrionic claims made by the so-called 'Concerned Scientists'. ...

    Regarding the document that was released on February 18, 2004 by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), I believe the UCS accusations are wrong and misleading. The accusations in the document are inaccurate, and certainly do not justify the sweeping conclusions of either the document or the accompanying statement. I believe the document

    • Re:I call shenanigans... (Score:5, Informative)

      by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:15PM (#9690304) Homepage Journal

      The Washington Times says

      You mean the newspaper owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon [realjournalism.net], the man who was recently coronated [hillnews.com] on Capitol Hill [entertaining account] [workingforchange.com] in the presence of a number of Congressmen?

    • Re:I call shenanigans... (Score:5, Informative)

      by GOD_ALMIGHTY ( 17678 ) <curt.johnson@gmail.NETBSDcom minus bsd> on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @05:37PM (#9691116) Homepage
      Wait, I want to get this straight.... You brought up a Washington Times story to refute an attack on a GOP administration?
      Are you aware the Times is operated at a loss of $1 million a week by the Moonies as a propaganda tool? It's not a credible newspaper, especially when critiquing a GOP administration. Go do some research on the Times and the Moonies, it'll make you feel like you stepped into some bizarre world.

      Uhm, Greenwatch is funded by the "vast right-wing conspiracy". Scaife funded organizations call anyone to the left of Attila the Hun, radical leftists. Please try discrediting the UCS again. Media Transparency [mediatransparency.com]

      I haven't got time to go pick apart a 20 page doc right now, but I can't say that I trust much that comes from the White House these days. And about the guy being a life-long Dem, so's Zell Miller, but he's speaking at the GOP convention.

      Quit listening to right wing media, it will rot your brain.
    • Since when has the right been a friend of the environment (hint, you have to go back to the '70s).

      The right spends most of its time looking to say that the environment is just fine and we can just forget about it. Bush just opened tons of federal lands to damaging roadwork for christ sakes.

      As for your other two sources, The white house is a part of this agenda and the washington times is the rapidly right wing baby of rev. moon. It doesn't even earn a profit (moon funds its yearly losses), it's a vanity p

  • Antiscience Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)

    by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @04:43PM (#9690616) Homepage
    No one with even a small understanding of the scientific process, let alone an interest in scientific progress, can vote Republican in good conscience. Why? Because both wings of Republican party are actively opposed to scientific progress. They will slow walk, whitewash, and when all else fails, flat out lie, to prevent or obscure the truth.

    On the buisness side you have those that ignore 30 years of studies concluding that the average global temperature is increasing, and that this increase is directly caused by human activity. ("Needs more study.") You have those that lie before congress, and in congress, that nicotine is not addictive. Then you have those that spout such nonsense that trees cause polution and ketchup is a vegetable.

    Then from the religious wing you've got those not only opposed to teaching evolution and the Big Bang, but promoting that world was formed on a tuesday afternoon 5000 years ago. They've even enlisted the federal govenerment to promoting the myth [sfgate.com] that the Grand Canyon didn't take million of years to form, but rather was formed over the course of a few hours after a global flood.

  • I used to blame Republicans/Conservatives (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DynaSoar ( 714234 ) * on Tuesday July 13, 2004 @06:51PM (#9691732) Journal
    Not any more. I've gotten to know some, and while we disagree, I understand their viewpoint.

    For my money, what's been going on is the Republican party has been hijacked, just as surely as the Taliban hijacked Afghanistan. It's been taken over by business "interests" to the point that public policy is not created without it being directed in some way towards making someone money.

    A good friend of mine is a policeman at the VA hospital where I work. He's clearly very conservative, and I'm quite the opposite, and we're both vets. We don't agree on much but we enjoy talking. One thing we do agree on: this is not the country we promised to defend. We don't know where it is, what happened to it or when, but we're both damn sure this ain't it.

    And I doubt the Democrats are much different, except for the fact that the richer and therefore more powerful "interests" have collected within the Republican party, leaving the Dems weaker.

    I've seen exactly this sort of political driving of science done at NIH. If it's not popular with the administration, you risk your career to pursue it, and it's a damn long way to fall if you fall from NIH.

    The US is losing its edge in science in part because researchers are not moving to the US to work, and some US researchers are leaving.

  • Re:"outrage fatigue" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nusratt ( 751548 )
    "I think you're suffering from outrage fatigue. See 'The Onion: Nation's Liberals Suffering From Outrage Fatigue'".
    No doubt about it. In fact in my case, "outrage despondency" might be more accurate.

    As it happens, I'm not a liberal. I'm eclectic. (Although the Republican Party has given us the two Presidents most threatening of civil liberties and separation of powers, the two most imperious and cynical and morally corrupt Presidents -- concerning *national* issues -- in my lifetime.) And there's a no

    • Can you imagine what the Founders would have thought of a central government which wishes [...] to effectively confine the vote to the landed gentry

      While I agree with most of your post, the fact is that when our country was founded, voting was pretty much restricted to the landed gentry.
      As time passed, more and more types of people became enfranchised, until today every adult human non-felon has the right to vote, even the mentally retarded.
      (Personally, I believe that felons should have the right to vote,

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close