Politicizing Science

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?"

Comments

AFAICT:

[edrugtrader]

michael can post whatever he wants... case in point.

Re:AFAICT:

[hobit]

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.

In the short run, this will make for bad policies

[Zork the Almighty]

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.

Gov is owned by Corporate America so...its WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Not science

[dswan69]

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:Do you trust your politicians ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

As if

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

To be expected

[_Spirit]

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.

Re:er, yes

[J'raxis]

"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?

Scientific Report

[nuggz]

A proper scientific report should clearly explain what and how the new information was found.

All the pros and cons should NOT be included.

For instance a report on the use of the "Morning After Pill" shouldn't contain the entire abortion arguement. It should as clearly and consisely as possible explain what new information was found.

Re:In the short run, this will make for bad polici

[thales]

"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.

Re:Sure they do!

[Rooktoven]

*we vote em out of office and get someone new.

This only works in countries that have legitimate elections though.

OVERRATED

[Fastball]

Did this post have a point aside from bashing the President?

Re:Guardian Interview with Christopher Reeve

[taxman_10m]

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?

It was NEVER science!

[overunderunderdone]

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.

Re:Gov is owned by Corporate America so...its WRON

[nanojath]

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?

Re:all the time

[Melantha_Bacchae]

An AC wrote:

> the majority still fortunately believes that women
> should have absolute control over their own body.

With the exception of rape and seriously male dominated countries, we women have absolute control over our bodies when we decide whether or not to have sex. Get in touch with your inner backbone and say no if you don't want to risk getting pregnant. Any other form of birth control is not 100% certain.

In the case of rape, yes, a woman should not be burdened with a child that she is not equipped to raise and who will constantly reminder her of the worst time of her life. Equally important, an innocent child should not have to be raised by a mother that would hate him or her for something that was not their fault. I still don't see why medicine doesn't get off its high horse and find a way to transplant the baby into the womb of someone who can't conceive a child (her problem or her hubby's), but still has a fully functioning womb. That way the kid would have a loving mother, a woman who couldn't have a baby would have her dream come true, and the woman who was raped could be free to pick up the pieces of her life and heal. They do a procedure like this for certain kinds of horses all the time.

> Even if that 10% rate of cancer is real and not
> some malicious FUD interpretation of statistics
> by a Pro Life nut "scientist" the women should
> still have the right to abort.

Don't laugh at breast cancer. My mother died of it. It was horrible!

Of course, by the time she died it wasn't just breast cancer. It got into her bones, permanently broke her leg, got into her skull above, and probably in, her brain, and generally all over everywhere in the last day or two of her life.

Don't laugh at it. Don't increase your risk for it. Get treatment immediately if you get it, and please, toss your stupid pride out the window. My mother waited 18 months because of her stupid pride (she was *so* strong) before telling me or getting treatment. It was so terrible watching her die of it.

"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)

Re:In the short run, this will make for bad policy

[Enzondio]

I disagree with this assessment. In order for most people to actually get upset about this something will have to affect them in a directly negative way. And I don't think that's going to happen (at least not in the short term). The problems introduced by these biased review boards will be so latent as to be unnoticed in the relevant future (i.e. more global warming won't mean the ice caps melt next year). By the time people start to see negative effects it will be way too late and they won't even connect them with this policy.

The whole point of this is to silence the voices of those who offer opposing views. If the public only gets one side of the story, it won't occur to most of them that there's another side.

What it means to have the highest perspective

[wytcld]

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."

Re:Sure they do!

[NelsChristian]

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:Science is biased and agenda-driven

[catfood]

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!"

Re:Do you trust your politicians ?

[rgmoore]

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.

Re:Guardian Interview with Christopher Reeve

[the_rev_matt]

In case you weren't aware, our constitution explicitely sets forth the doctrine of separation. It's in the First Amendment. The government has no business determining what is and is not "moral", which is fortunate because I don't believe that any politician is qualified to make that decision.

Note that "In God We Trust" and "Under God" were both added to our culture after all the founders were dead and buried.

Re:our mottos were not original

[jibs]

This is precisely why I hate that "one nation, under god" was added in the 50's to the pledge, and also the mottos on our money. Many people these days don't realize that it wasn't always that way and use that as an argument for thinking we are a nation built on religion. Even if our forefathers had faith, they realized how important it is to be left up the individual instead of dictating who's right and who's wrong.

Re:Guardian Interview with Christopher Reeve

[flwombat]

It is interesting, given that the founders of our country picked no bones about having no such separation.

You are wrong about that.

In fact, the Declaration of Independence talks about the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

This is unsurprising. The Declaration was drafted by Deists. Deists weren't Christians. They dropped a few references like the one above, in the vague manner of Deists ("divine providence", "the judge of the world", "creator") but they avoided any specific religious reference. Probably pissed off the Christians of the time, too. If you don't agree that these references are purposefully vague, go read the beginning of the Mayflower Compact.

Truth is, it is impossible to separate Church and State because the rock that our moral code is built upon comes from God. And a people's belief in and worship of God directly effects how they want to be governed.

"The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
-George Washington, in the Treaty of Tripoli

Our currency carries our motto, "In God we Trust!" Our pledge states that we are a nation indivisible "under God"

I don't know the history of the currency, but the religious reference in the pledge was a cynical political ploy; it was added during the McCarthy witch-hunt era.

I realize I haven't addressed your argument about stem cells, but holy crap! If you're a Christian, can't you see that politicians who parade their religious morality are just acting the part of the Pharisees?

Go read Peter McWilliams's excellent "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do", from which I borrowed a bit here.

Re:Swapping partiality...

[sterlingchap]

Does this remind anybody of Lysenkoism? For a long time, the Soviets under Stalin maintained that science had to support party policy, even if it resulted in horribly distorted science. Scientists who dissented were suppressed and sent to prison camps.The government policies based on the resulting bad science (particularly in agriculture) resulted in countless deaths from starvation, and kept back Russian science in many fields for decades. OK, so we're not sending scientists to prison camps yet; But it's scary to think that we might allow politically-motivated committees to determine what is scientific "truth" based on what the current administration would like to be true. Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them.

Re:Gov is owned by Corporate America so...its WRON

[nanojath]

Wow, thank you for making exactly the point I was striving for. I wouldn't have believed that someone would actually stumble into the same logical fallacy as my friends, despite the fact that I make it so clear, so I'll spell it out nice and slow for you, ya' nimrod.

First off, Greens in Florida did not in any way shape or form "cost Al Gore the election." Your statement assumes that AL Gore "deserved" these people's votes, that they "denied" him the votes he somehow had a "right" to, which is patently absurd. Sure, you can argue that Greens SHOULD have voted for Al Gore, hell, you can argue that Republicans and Libertarians should have voted for Al Gore. You could argue that vast numbers of Floridian fogeys should have figured out how to work their damn ballot instead of accidentally voting for Pat Buchannan, that Florida Democrats should have realized the Ballot was confusing and blocked it before it was approved, or that Jeb Bush should have been eaten alive by wild dingos at birth. You could argue that the Supreme Court shouldn't have called the election how and when they did, you could argue that our country should apply the popular rather than the electoral vote count for choosing its leader, or that Al Gore really should have been able to take Tennessee, all things considered. You could argue that while the Republican party has coddled its lunatic fringe by keeping pressure on wack religious issues and such, the Democratic party has essentially alienated it's own lefty wackos by drifting more and more consistently to the center.

But no, you blame a tiny percentage of voters who chose to vote their consciences rather than their fear. It's their fault! Ignore the whole point I made that I voted in the firm (and may I point out wholly correct) knowledge that there were not enough Greens in MN to tip the balance against Gore (what with our modern optical voting machines and all...). Just ignore my explanation of strategic voting... namely, that my vote accomplished something (major party status for Greens in MN) while your vote for Gore, my fine little friend, accomplished dick. That's D-I-C-K. Didn't matter. You threw it away.

You also seem to be missing the fact that what I'm essentially arguing is that, aside from a few "hot-button" issues that keep dips like you on the hook, the DFL and the GOP have become indistinguishable corporate-funded power-trading PR machines, and the only solution to this is to vote against corporate funded candidates. This is called a long-range approach. If you haven't twigged to the fact yet, your knee-jerk fear-based short-term approached is having the impact that EVERY SINGLE YEAR it takes more and more money to get elected and therefor every year the wealthy minority of individuals have more and more influence on American politics. It gets worse and worse and pinhead little yappers like you keep DOING THE SAME THING, saying "yes I approve of wealthy individuals and corporations defining the two viable choices for me in representing my interests in every government position through direct investment and I will demonstrate this by voting for one of these two choices under all circumstances," and then, so help me, getting self righteous about it to boot!

If this is your definition of "assinine" and "irresponsible" I shudder to imagine what your political philosophy sounds like. Oh, and if yer gonna use them big words like "asinine"
ya might wanna learn to spell it, you idiot.