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."
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
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.
" 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).
I did check out the website. He seems to be among a group of people these days who want to disbelieve any scientific result that is generally accepted. Practically all immune researchers believe HIV causes AIDS? They must be wrong! The establishment didn't accept Velikovsky? He must have been right! This attitude appears to come from an UNcritical distrust of authority. Just being dismissed by the authorities doesn't make an idea worthy of serious consideration. They may well have laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
This is nothing new with this administration.
e /index.htm
No, but what is new with this administration is the extent of creation of policy based upon and filtered through pre-determined morality and financial interest. My letter to Sen. Waxman follows:
Regarding your website: Politics and Science. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscienc
As a scientist beginning my career, I can certainly applaud your efforts to create such a page. We need more science education for the general public to ensure that people can reach appropriate decisions based upon factual and unbiased information provided by the scientific community.
There will always be spin in politics and science, but the goal should be a search for the truth unencumbered by political ideologies or financial influence. Maintenance of this pure environment for scientific research is untenable, but the approach the Bush administration has taken has skewed scientific efforts in the name of pre-determined scientific results filtered through this administrations morality. Political decisions that guide the course of this country should not be made upon unilateral priorities. Rather, they need to be made through rigorous application of question, study and answer.
Efforts to educate the scientific and lawmaking community through proper scientific procedure and questioning along with public education and critical thinking requires publicly funded peer-reviewed science. Your staff has done an admirable job in preparing this site based upon these principles and I would encourage the dissemination of these efforts to other lawmakers via a more intimate relationship with the scientific community. Ultimately, I would like to see in government fewer scientific cabals and more open discussions of current issues by a rotating group of scientists who advise this countries policy makers.
Best Regards,
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The big "putty" problem seems to be that beginning with shuttle flight 10, pre-flight tests of the joints were conducted at higher pressures than before, leading to the formation of bubbles and "blowholes" in the putty. The hot gases followed these paths of weakness to the O-ring. In 1984, a NASA engineer derided the use of putty at all as "lucky putty", suggesting that the putty introduced an extra point of failure and was probably unnecessary. His suggestions for study on this issue were not followed up. I got my information here. This page quotes extensively from the Challenger report, Richard Feynman, and from authors making the "environmentalists did it" claims.
For someone complaining about fearmongering, it's curious that James Hogan is telling us how dangerous evironmentalists are with their "junk science", yet he is using incorrect information that it took me 5 minutes with Google to refute. It's funny how people always claim that their side is objective and everyone else is "politicizing" science. This is most definitely not limited to any one viewpoint on the political spectrum.