Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Of course, research has to be political, even many ppl here on slashdot won't agree.
By political, you mean for example the fact that some things are not agreeable to work on such as human cloning.
And I think the budget decisions on how much money is granted to a research branch is political
The main question, here, is how much should it be politized and if you trust yourpoliticians.
The right way to fix the problem may not be to give them less power, but to have politicians you trust.
I am a European, but is the real question : do you trust Bush government on defining Science ? Would you trust Nader ?
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
What do you mean or? The answer to both question is yes. It is wrong, but whose in power do what they want.
The danish government did a similiar thing back in the spring, they even admited openly they have cut down on review-boards that they considered too "lefty". This is the problem with government with a too stable majority; noone to oppose them.
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
Hmm.. I sense a rhetorical question ... ;) Yes, those elected get to do what they want with tax money. You like it, when they're dems, so don't pretend to oppose it generally.
Call me when they start pushing aquired heredity or a flat earth. Until then, yawn.
You've misunderstood. There are two questions here:
Item 1 is obviously best assessed by independant scientists, because it can be measured relatively objectively and requires scientific skill. Point 2 is unsuitable for independant scientists for a number of reasons. Firstly, what is the objective of funding research in the first place? Is it to advance knowledge for its own sake, or to solve specific problems that are facing civilization?
Unfortunately the vast majority of people have no understanding of science or its principles.
And secondly, what is considered acceptable subject matter for research by the taxpayer? Scientists often forget that it's the "unwashed masses" who foot the bill for their expensive toys. No matter what scientists think are the benefits - and no matter how skillful their rhetoric - if the general public doesn't want to fund research into XXX, then those scientists should not receive a penny of taxpayer's money.
This is illustrated in the matter of stem cell research. There are undoubtedly benefits to such research, and the scientists from point 1 would be happy for it, from the perspective of pure science. But it's up to the people in point 2 - on whose behalf the research is being done - to make the decision. If the scientists disagree, well, they should find their own funding.
Or how about during the Clinton administraction's EPA head Carol Browner basically fudged a study on particulates. The test case was five cities. They were measuring the health problems due to particulates. Turns out that they could only positive data in two of the five cities. So, what to they do? They throw out two of the cities as if they didn't even study them. They post their conclusion that: 66% of inner city children are dying from particulates.
There really is something to the "Junk Science" theory. Once you get political policy involved, and dollars, you get a bunch of junk!
It's very kind of the USA to spend money protecting the world so the rest of us can invest our surpluses in productive areas.
You can't afford your levels of defence spending and spiralling military commitments, which will become apparent soon enough.
Quoting Washington Post:
At least the Americans seem to be half-aware of what's happening. As a European with an interest in the protection of privacy and human rights I am appalled at how little my fellow EU citizens seem to know about the erosion of their rights and how readily they accept it when they're told about the recent changes. European media doesn't really criticize this process because they can either be silenced (even big news broadcasters like BBC have been under heavy pressure from the UK Home Office) or they censor themselves in fear of appearing sensationalist.
The owls are not what they seem
Christopher Reeve has been mentioned several times lately here.
I think it would be worth while to set up an interview on Slashdot with him.
Any one else agree?
As a kid, I thought he made a kickass Superman, but ever since I saw him on the Celebrity Atheists List, Christopher Reeve has been a hero and inspiration.
Reeve has every reason to chicken out and go the religious route, as do many people who have their lives so disrupted. What courage to put his faith in things that really matter: the continuing advance of science, the companionship of loved ones, and the power of personal force of will.
Thanks to that, he has started to recover some movement and sesnsation over much of his body. No miracles involved.