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

Do you trust your politicians ?

[makapuf]

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 ?

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...

Re:Do you trust your politicians ?

[Zork the Almighty]

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.

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.

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:Not science

[sql*kitten]

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.

blind leadin the blind

[inoffensif]

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." --George W. Bush, May 5, 2000

With statements like that from their leader I'd hate to see what US govt officials have to say about embryo cell research and cloning...

Careless writing

[return 42]

This includes careless elimination of life-saving safety regulations in gene-therapy...

Um, the article actually talks about regulation of genetic tests...

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.

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.

Guardian Interview with Christopher Reeve

[alistair]

Interestly enough, there is a Guardian inteview with Christoper Reeve in todays issue in which he makes a number of passionate and obviously, very personal, points about stem cell research and the need for separation between Church and State. The interview can be read here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,793 585,00.html

One of many excellent quotes is,

"We've had a severe violation of the separation of church and state in the handling of what to do about this emerging technology. Imagine if developing a polio vaccine had been a controversial issue," he says. "There are religious groups - the Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe - who think it's a sin to have a blood transfusion. What if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research? Where would we be with blood transfusions?"

It's an interesting read, not only for his political comments but also to see his determination to fight back when many would have given up.

It just goes downhill from here, folks.

[perfessor multigeek]

Whoops! Contradicting yourself there ol' son.
EITHER the truth is just not clear OR scientists can reasonably be chosen based on your already knowing what conclusion they'll reach.
Can't have both.
Let's face it folks, this administration is fundamentally oposed to public review of *any* issue.
Bottom line, we leave them there long enough and they'll start going after /.
Don't believe me? Look at what happened to the SPIE (Society of PhotoInstrumentation Engineers) under Reagan. They started being threatened with arrest on treason charges if they released research that contradicted SDI (The "Star Wars" program).
As somebody who worked on a few SDI proposals and was doing fiber optics work at the time (mostly for defense applications) I don't intend to be quiet this time.
So, are you ready to "hang separately"?
Rustin H. Wright
Founder, Reed and Wright
F.O. patent 4,808,204 (drawings done on a Mac Plus!)

Interview with Christopher Reeve

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

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:Oligarchy

[GMontag451]

You actually have that backwards. It is an aristocracy (rule by the aristocrats) that is the government of the few for their own good, usually the rich, but in older countries can include the "noble", or relatives and friends of the royal.

An oligarchy is the government of a few chosen for their virtue, usually based on their age. Oligarchys have been very rare in Western governments, but were more common in Native American tribes, where it was usually implemented as rule by a council of elders.

The "democracy" you speak of is in fact a representative democracy, which in practice usually develops into a republic. The difference between a representative democracy and a republic is that in a representative democracy, the elected officials are supposed to have opinions that are representative of the majority of the citizens that official represents. In a republic, all that matters is popularity, and popularity among the upper class being more important (but not all important) than the middle and lower classes. There is no true nobility in a republic because the influence of the lower classes still exists, although there may be a minority slave class that has no influence.

The difference between a republic and a aristocracy (which is the comparison you were trying to make between an oligarchy and a democracy) is that in a republic there is that gradient of influence, and the majority of people have at least some, but not necessarily an equal, say in the government of the country. In an aristocracy, the majority of the people have no say in the government.

Re:Irrational Liberal "Epistemology" Strikes Again

[alienmole]

It's only natural that a group of borderline-psychopathic thugs and killers would get their epistemology so wrong as to conclude that they are the creators of the universe.

Excuse me, but I am the Creator of the Universe. Some people do consider me a borderline-psychopathic Thug - I admit, encouraging competing religions was a bad idea, not to mention the creation of trolls - what was I thinking? But no-one in their right minds would call Me a liberal. In fact, I have a good mind to smite thee for even thinking that!

But on second thoughts, smiting might be a tad psychopathic, and I've been trying to ease up on that a bit, since the whole World War II thing. I'll have to settle for having one of My acolytes mod you down.

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: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!"