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."
There is a big difference (in legal terms) between lying in a speech and lying under oath. Lying in a speech called a campaign promise. Lying under oath is called perjury. Little "details" like that are what make the Rule of Law work. If you start ignoring them, the whole system falls apart.
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
Yeah, lying about your sex life sure is more important than lying to get the country into a war. I'm sure glad that W. won't be lying to us about his sex life!
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.
It just does not matter.
Or, rather, it shouldn't matter. But it does. Look at the areas of science that the report alleges has been misstated and/or slanted. Note the bent towards morality/reproductive issues like the impact of abortion on breast cancer, stem-cell research, condom use and abstinence-only education. Clinton was a Baptist but I've never heard anyone allege that Clinton attempted to hide good science that disagreed with his base.
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) on an unsuspecting populace with the potential for dangerous results (e.g. higher STD transmission rates/teen pregancy in populations underserved by sex education who hear only about abstinence).
This is dangerous behaviour and regardless of your political bent (admittedly I'm a slightly-left-of-center scientist) you should be concerned about government actively working to obscure the truth. 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.
-j
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
" 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.
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)
And Christianity was made up by some guy 2000 years ago. So how long does wicca have to be around before it's a "real religion"? How about Mormons, do they have a real religion, or is the fact that The Church of Latter Day Saints is 150 years or so old mean it has enough seniority in your opinion to count? Somehow I missed the part of the constitution that said the President got to decide what was or wasn't a "real" religion.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
*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.
"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.