Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Politicizing Science

Posted by michael on from the he-who-has-the-gold dept.

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?"

4 of 472 comments (clear)

  1. Do you trust your politicians ? by makapuf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 ?

    1. Re:Do you trust your politicians ? by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree with your point that everything is essentially politicized, however the main concern here is that the people appointed to these boards will replace scientific objectivity with their own personal views. That is not the purpose of a scientific board. If the Bush administration wants to create "policy review boards", and stack them full of these people, so be it. They did that with the Energy Review Board (=Oil, Gas and Coal industry), and everyone knew it was a sham. The problem here is that by using scientific panels for this purpose, they will decrease the amount of real information available to people. The net effect is the same as if they had simply eliminated scientific review boards altogether.

      The Bush administration has used this same tactic over and over again. They create an information vacuum, and then implement whatever policy they want, under the pretext that "nobody knows any better". If they're going to do that, I'd prefer they just eliminate the scientific review boards altogether and save money. Then they can tell the public that "we just do whatever the hell we want, and we won't pay for some egghead to tell us any different". For one, it'd be the truth, but I'm just a little worried that Bush would be more popular for saying something like that.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  2. Re:Not science by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Then it isn't science. Review by independent scientists is a fundamental part of science.

    You've misunderstood. There are two questions here:
    1. Was the research conducted in a professional, rigorous and objective manner?
    2. What research should we be funding in the first place?

    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.
  3. Interview with Christopher Reeve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?