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."

Comments

Everything becoming political

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Everything becoming political

[bofkentucky]

Okay, I'm a libertarian who doesn't like to waste his vote, republican's are the current best way to get our message across for smaller gov't and lower taxes. I look at "defense pork" as a lot less damaging as "Welfare pork". Defense pork means the government paid for something and presumably, someone had to make it and then ship it to the pentagon, already that is two jobs that pay taxes pumping a portion of that money back into the fed treas. Those two guys need to eat, have a haircut, buy a car, etc, creating more jobs. The welfare pork simply keeps a poor underclass that is totally dependent on Uncle Sam for their food and housing without creating more jobs (other than bureaucrats), without a constitutional mandate like defense spending.

Re:For those of you who don't know waxman....

[bofkentucky]

Judging by these stats, money shouldn't have been an issue in the congressional races last fall, as it would appear that the dems raised as much or even more money than republicans, but still lost seats, which would suggests that, shock shock, voters voted on issues, not that the campaign was bought by a bunch of WASP republican fat cats. Looking over the big donor listthe top 10 dem donors raised $68,070,894, in mostly stolen money (Labor union contributions do not reflect the political ideologies of their members) while the top 10 republicans raised a whopping $32,783,289, or less than half what the democrat big donors gave

Science politicizes itself all the time

[Saganaga]

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?

Re:For those of you who don't know waxman....

[bofkentucky]

is it a pattern of dissembling and deceit or a dem with an axe to grind, I tend to lean toward the dem with an axe to grind, but draw your own conclusions