Slashdot Mirror
Politicizing Science
grape jelly writes "A new website has been created by Rep. Harry A. Waxman, of California, by the name of Politics and Science that accuses the current administration of intentionally manipulating scientific data in order to further its ideology. The site was created as a result of a congressional report (pdf) request by Rep. Waxman, available on his site. A NYTimes article is also available about the report with a response from the administration."
Waxman likes bad science as long as it is used to support his agenda. This is all politics, and nothing more.
I guess we should impeach the liar. At least Clinton could speak english.
The liar was impeached a few years ago.
Politically, Gray Davis is on the same team as Waxman, so don't expect Waxman to turn his wrath on the bad Gray science.
This is nothing more than "A Democrat says a Republican is bad" (itself nothing different from "A Republican says a Democrat is bad"). It is not newsworthy.
Seems to me that the government has been manipulating and misrepresenting "scientific" data for a long time. Let's see, "marijuana makes you violent" came in the 40's as I recall, and there are plenty of other examples. This is nothing new with this administration.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
As the role of government infiltrates every aspect of every American's life, everywhere we go and everything we say becomes political. Soon everything we think will become political. This is the price we pay for the growth of progressive socialism that both the democrats and republicans seem all too willing to embrace.
Here's a brief rundown of his contributors, looks like a run of the mill democrat stooge for labor unions, trial lawyers, and the entertainment industry.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
This attitude is what's scary about the world today, isn't it? We're being lied to and nobody gives a damn. I haven't read the article, but the apathy is appalling.
from a Christian Extremist with significant interests in the Oil Industry?
The conflicts of interest in the current administration are so transparent, that anyone suprised by any of this literally needs a slap to set them back in reality.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
All information will be politicized, not just what comes from scientific investigation.
The only defense for scientists is to continue to pursue the truth, postulate hypotheses, and to ask questions and get answers about the validity of those hypotheses.
Honestly, what this world needs is less politics in science and more science in politics.
Politics is so heavily weighted in emotion and personality that I hold out little hope of rational and critical thought making any more than a stage appearance in government.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
ASHINGTON, Aug. 7 -- The Bush administration persistently manipulates scientific data to serve its ideology and protect the interests of its political supporters, a report by the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform says.
The 40-page report, which was prepared for Representative Henry A. Waxman, the committee's ranking Democrat, accused the administration of compromising the scientific integrity of federal institutions that monitor food and medicine, conduct health research, control disease and protect the environment.
On many topics, including global warming and sex education, the administration "has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings," the report said.
"The administration's political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the president, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered Web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications and the gagging of scientists," the report added.
The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, dismissed the report. He contended that its sponsor, Mr. Waxman, who is widely known for his aggressive inquiry into the tobacco industry, was seeking to score political points.
"This administration looks at the facts, and reviews the best available science based on what's right for the American people," Mr. McClellan said. "The only one who is playing politics about science is Congressman Waxman. His report is riddled with distortion, inaccuracies and omissions."
Some of the examples from the report's 21 subject areas have already been reported in the media. They include the Environmental Protection Agency's decision last year to delete a section on global warming in its comprehensive report on the state of the environment and President Bush's overstatement of the number of stem cell lines available for research under controls imposed by the administration.
The report's authors say federal agencies have jeopardized scientific integrity in many ways, including stacking scientific advisory committees with unqualified officials or industry representatives, blocking publication of findings that could harm corporate interests and defending controversial decisions with misleading information.
With respect to sex education, the report said, the Bush administration has advanced what the report described as an unproven "abstinence only" agenda and abolished an initiative at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that listed scientifically validated safe-sex techniques that included using condoms.
On agricultural pollution, the Agriculture Department has issued tight controls on government scientists seeking to publish information that could have an adverse impact on industry, the report said. It cited the case of a microbiologist, James Zahn, who was denied permission to publish findings on the dangers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria near hog farms in the Midwest.
On the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the report said that Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, a firm advocate of drilling for oil in the region, misrepresented to Congress her agency's scientific opinion on how drilling would affect the region's caribou population. She told lawmakers most of the caribou calving occurred outside the refuge; her scientists said the opposite was true.
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
I would hope Representative Waxman would present examples from both sides of the fence regarding science being misrepresented for politicial gain. (*cough* Global Warming. *cough* AIDS.) But, being a politician himself, I highly doubt that will happen.
For better coverage of both science-for-political-gain AND the politics-OF-science, check out James P. Hogan's non-fiction books and his bulletin board for some very eye-opening insight into these types of things.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Bush did not lie. The bad information came from British intelligence.... and was presented to Bush by a Clinton staffer (Tenant), no less.
" from a Christian Extremist"
He's quite mainstream, not extremist (if 50% or more of the public is with you, you are quite mainstream) The "Christian" epithet only shows your own bigotry, like someone talking about "Jew candidate Lieberman". It just does not matter.
Today, it's actually a necessity. You can find a study to say whatever you want; depending on the model, experimental methods, statistical methods, and a dozen other variables. People who act on research must filter through what is discovered, and decide what they think is true.
There are studies that prove global warming is currently killing thousands, and others that prove that it never exsisted, is a natural process, or is being/has been reversed. DTT is a killer, and the guy that did the study did it wrong/no he didn't. There is/is not a "gay gene".
Adminstration has to filter through these reports and determine which ones are correct, because they can't all be correct. Is it surprising that they would pick the ones that best fit their agenda? Even when you take good advisors into account, these advisors must be selected by the administration. Who's best? How does the administration pick their advisors? The same way they would pick which study to believe: Based on what they already think is true, or whatever best fits into their perception of how the world works. No matter how open minded and unbiased they (the admin) tries to be, they won't be, can't be unbiased. They will still lean towards what they had previously believed. And they won't be easily swayed, because any data that comes out contradicting what they believe can be countered by some other piece of (just as accurate) data that was gathered under slightly different conditions.
I guess the only real way around it would be to have advisory panels staffed by the scientists with the opposing views. Even then, though...many, if not most, scientists are severely lacking in interpersonal skills (I say this as a scientist severely lacking in interpersonal skills), so those panels would get little done, especially when several of the people in the room have been butting heads for decades.
My sig seems even more appropriate than usual today...
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
" The government is manipulating information in order to further its agenda?"
Realize that this describes this biased report by Waxman (who is also a member of the govenrment). Remember that Waxman would have never made such charges of Clinton no matter how much science manipulating they did. Waxman, after all, went way out on a limb to exonerate Clinton of actual crimes he committed (just because Clinton was a fellow Democrat).
"Did the Sumerians release massive quantities of green house gasses into the environment?"
If they burned stuff, they almost certainly did.
"Did the Sumerians have the ability to measure global temperature variations over a long period of time?"
No, but neither do we. We've only been able to measure a tiny amount of time, not a "long period".
"Just because people haven't worried about something before doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about it now. "
Just because someone says we should worry does not mean we should listen to Chicken Little and worry without reason.
No, I was not caught this time by the web of lies put out by the Democrat Party and the liberal media, who are kind of sore that Bush has not given them much to run against, so they make up stuff about him and run against that.
" Us can't get judgeships filled,"
During the Clinton administration, responsible Congresspeople refused to confirm a blatant racist (Jim Lan Lee) to the top civil rights post, so Clinton appointed then when Congress was away.
Is there a reason this cannot be done with the judges?
I'm sorry but did the NY Times still have credibility? When did they earn that back after 25+ years as a left-wing rag?
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
While there is little doubt that executive administrations pick and choose the statisitics they base their policy choices on, this President has been particularly bad. Republicans and Democrats have twisted scientific data and opinions to suit their own desires, but President Bush has a habit of forcing his religious moral on the rest of us, and helping out his big business pals using 'scientists' as justification. The level of this type of behavior is unprecedented.
Scientists, whether or not they admit it, are guilty of letting their political views cloud their research all the time.
For example, look at the recent editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine. I quote:
"The editors of the Journal will do our part by seeking out highly meritorious manuscripts that describe research using embryonic stem cells. When treatments derived from this technology emerge, we will publish the papers that describe them. As a physician who has cared for patients who suffered and died from conditions that we are currently unable to treat, I hope that this research can progress rapidly.
"It is reasonable to regulate the technology of somatic-cell nuclear transfer, just as we regulate the use of radioisotopes and recombinant DNA, but it is unreasonable to prohibit research using this technology. No matter what Congress decides, such treatments will be developed somewhere in the world. Physicians and scientists in the United States should be at the center of the action, not on the sidelines. We want to be sure that legislative myopia does not blur scientific insight."
What is this but a blatant effort to shape the political debate over stem cell research? What if a breakthough in adult stem cell research happened--would you trust the NEJM to publish the results?
"this President has been particularly bad"
No, he is a lot better than Clinton. I know that is not saying much, but at least this President is helping saving the government embarassment by preventing the government from releasing more bad studies (like the phony EPA study about mythical "global warming").
" morality/reproductive issues like the impact of abortion "
Abortion is not a reproductive issue. Scientifically, it occurs after the process of reproduction has occured.
You are also forgetting the fact that half of Christians favor abortion. Therefore, the "Christian" epithet becomes even more meaningless.
"Bush is abusing our nation's scientific infrastructure to push his fundamentalist Christian worldview (which, in contradiction to your assertion is not the worldview of the majority of our nation's Christians) "
Yeah, it is not even Bush's worldview. He's not doing it.
"(e.g. higher STD transmission rates/teen pregancy in populations underserved by sex education who hear only about abstinence)."
Abstinence, regardless of "Christian" morality, is very effective... in fact, 100% so unless there is rape.
"Clinton was a Baptist but I've never heard anyone allege that Clinton attempted to hide good science that disagreed with his base."
No, Clinton was often favorable to unsupported crackpot spews from so-called "environmentalist" groups.
"Politicking is one thing, actively working to lie to young women seeking abortions and scaring them into believing they might get breast cancer for their troubles is quite another."
I agree. Abortion should be banned because it is 100% fatal to children. That is reason enough.
They rely on people having factually incorrect data on global warming, birth control, etc. A Scientific worldview and a conservate worldview are as incompatable today as they were in the days of Galieo and Darwin.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
"funny, that's how some of us feel about the president's religion, not to mention his FEAR WORRY FEAR WORRY FEAR rhetoric about THE EVER PRESENT THREAT, terrorism."
The president's religion does not matter a whit, so you're OK.
As for terrorism, there's a few people in southern Manhattan who might be able to dissuade you from the idea that you are just watching ID4 reruns on WTBS.
Fear-worry? no, he just presents the facts. What you choose to do is up to you.
" Science finds objectives truths. Since science constiently comes out against conservatives on many issues"
Liberals come out against conservatives. "Science" rarely does, as it is not a policy matter.
"They rely on people having factually incorrect data on global warming, birth control, etc"
At this time, the conservatives tend to hold more to the real science on global warming (instead of silly fad "theories" in which someone has a political axe to grind so they make up "we are warming the earth" fictions). "Birth control" is not a science controversy at this time, so I do not know why you mentioned it.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"Do I think that means we should just indiscriminately dump CO2 into the atmosphere?"
It might mean that we should worry more about species extinction, habitat destruction, pollution with real toxins, and other environmental issues which get shoved to the back burner when "Global Warming" grabs the headlines.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
""These views are not connected to any church..."
How so? There is no ambiguity about this administration's religious alignment."
Church-wise, there is not ambiguity: there is outright contradiction. President Bush is a United Methodist, a member of church known for liberal views on a wide variety of social issues, incuding being an outspoken voice against his Iraq war.
Bush's views are more personal than church-dictated. On the issues of the day, he tends to defy his church rather than obey it.
But scientific data supports liberals more than conservatives.
At this time, the conservatives tend to hold more to the real science on global warming
I hope you're kidding. Scientists constiently say that global warming is real. Did you read the linked article? Scientists who say global wariming is real and is a problem literally outnumber the naysayers by more than one thousand to one.
Birh control is not a science controversy. It is a political one. You may lead the linked article to see how conservatives distort the issue.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
"But scientific data supports liberals more than conservatives."
This is to much a value generality, like "liberals are better than conservatives".
I'm sure that the average "liberal" is more science-supported than the "conservative" who happens to be a Creation Science fundamentalist. However, the average "conservative" is more science-supported than a "liberal" who happens to believe in GAIA theories (or the caller I heard on Larry King one night who said earthquakes are the Earth getting back at humans for environmental damage).
As an overall generalization, it is too vague.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
To quote California gubernatorial candidate Gary Coleman....
""But to extend your analogy," What analogy did I make? I don't recall comparing anything except in my SIG.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
How about if we ban incumbency? Term limit of one.
What have we got to lose except for the expansion of the princely powers of the likes of Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy, elected year after year after year after year.
I didn't see any 'facts' mentioning that the coal-burning electric plants in the US put out more nuclear radiation in a single day than the incident at 3 Mile Island did.
Oh, right, because dems are anti-nuke and this site only serves to pick political fights.
If someone wants to put up a site citing real science on the litany of hypocritical positions politicians take, great, but let's call this thing what it is: politics.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
" incumbents tend to win "
Incumbents tend to win because they use the resources of their office to campaign at taxpayer expense. Then they pass laws (such as McCain-Feingold) which start to outlaw challengers campaigning against them.
", if they are the best qualified canidate, why shouldn't they?"
Powew corrupts. The longer these guys are in, the more they build up slick, powerful, corrupt machines. Send them home and let someone else have a crack at it.
"I still stand by the statement that labor unions do not support their members beliefs by blindly supporting democrat canidates"
You are correct on this: it is stolen money. Most union members are forced to join the unions, and after they are forced in, their dues and other special assessments or "contributions" (you'd better pay to the PAC or else) are assessed and then given to candidates that go against the member's interest.
Either have national right to work, so no member is forced to join the union OR ensure that every single political contribution is voluntary.
"except that he says that people who are wiccans don't have a "legitimate" religion, and the military should make no accomodations for them. "
Wake me up when you come up with a real religion. Wicca was something made up by some guy about 100 years ago. Might as well also have the Army make special accomodation for Jedi force meditations too.
"no matter what the bigot in chief may think to the contrary"
Bigot? This is the man who wanted the Supreme Court to rule in favor of equal rights in the Michigan racist college admissions ruling. A lot of racists attacke him for daring to speak up for equal rights.
" Where does lying to a joint session of Congress fall on that scale?"
You'd have 8 new reasons to impeach Clinton, and none to impeach Bush.
*applause*. I'm reminded of a .sig where someone observed the following:
There aren't too many people on the left or right) that would argue that. A leftie might phrase it differently - speaking of "heartless Republicans" and "those striving for social justice" - but would likely agree with the point.
The odd part is that if you replace "left" with "right", and "economic" with "social", you still end up with a statement that both sides would take as a compliment.
What a flaming asshole.
" the unions or the NRA are free to hand out voter guides or produce independent ads"
That is still a problem, as the unions use stolen money for this (unlike the NRA, League of Women Voters, NARAL, AARP, where membership is voluntary and political money is not extorted).
The key to this is to have a national "right to work" law where union membership is the choice of each worker (instead of curtailing the freedom of the union to campaign like the NRA does)
"And no churches, handing out "voter guides" to their armies of obedient sheep."
Translation: obedient sheep = people who dare to think differently than you do.
"If they're going to enter the political sphere that way, they can start paying taxes like the rest of us."
No, government is too greedy already. We are way overtaxed. Lower the rest of our taxes if you must change something.
"Little "details" like that are what make the Rule of Law work. If you start ignoring them, the whole system falls apart."
Ignoring the "rule of law" like the 30% hardcore leftists that hate Bush so much that they denies that Bush won the last election just because they liked the other guy better?
They think that the Constitutional election process is only OK if it produces a left-wing president like Clinton. If it produces a centrist or right-wing President, it can be ignored at will.
they constantly say it's real, because IT'S THE BEST WAY OF GETTING FUNDING! I used to work at a Govt lab in the late 80s & early 90s. When Gore & his watermelon buddies started kicking around the global warming stuff politically, the rule of the day was: whatever it is you do, try to tie it to global change. If they actually reported that things were getting better, their funding would get cut.
Birth control is easy: don't want to get yourself or someone else pregnant? Don't fuck them. You won't get STDs that way either. ALL other birth control methods have a failure rate associated with them, so to think it's 'safe' is a fallacy. The Pill has done wonders to help spread STDs too. The problem is that the advertising and entertainment industries saturate everything with sex and the kids' parents aren't teaching them about life.
Correct. The "humans are causing global warming" is all bad science and $$$ involving corrupt government and special interest groups.
It's for those who believe that the earth is flat.
You can't do that. To the dominant establishment, promiscuity is a sacrement. Anything that gets in the way it (even if it is to prevent a fatal disease spread by promiscuity) cannot be allowed, it is "imposing morality".
It might have been intentional but for what it's worth, your post doesn't have much to do with real science, either. Where's your source on this?
I'm not really too concerned about whether you're right or not, because you might be. But what you've said doesn't mean much, because radiation is simply the name for a particular method of energy transfer. It's completely possible that a lot of things release more radiation that the incident on 3 mile island, starting with the Sun... without whose radiated energy we'd all be dead.
The more important issue is whether or not the coal burning plant radiation is actually dangerous to people or the environment. Can you be more specific?
Okay, just to piss in your cereal real quick...
We are warming the earth.[1]
There are three fundamental questions - does the earth regulate its temperature, is it regulating its temperature well enough to keep up with how fast we're warming it, and if not, is that dangerous in the long term.
Your answers to those three questions might differ from mine, but saying that it's "fiction" that we are warming the earth is asinine.
[1] Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Education is the silver bullet.
Birth control is easy: don't want to get yourself or someone else pregnant? Don't fuck them... ALL other birth control methods have a failure rate associated with them, so to think it's 'safe' is a fallacy.
Well, according to Christians, sometimes virgins have babies, so there's a failure rate associated with abstinance, too.
*ducks flying Bible*
Education is the silver bullet.