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."
I guess we should impeach the liar. At least Clinton could speak english.
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
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.
This is the price we pay for the growth of progressive socialism that both the democrats and republicans seem all too willing to embrace.
Why do they bother being separate, anymore. It would be much more efficient to merge the republican and democrat parties. The new party would be called "Us" and all other parties would be merged into a new party called "Them".
Then it would be more clearly a matter of "Us" positioning themselves into a cycle of gathering more and more power over their constituencies. Anyone in the "Them" party, even freedom-loving Libertarians and tree-hugging Greens, would be labeled terrorists and flown to Guantanamo.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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).
Us can't get judgeships filled, prescription drug coverage, medicare/medicaid/social security reform, or a ballanced budget. There are signifigant differences in republicans and democrats, ranging from the thread-killers (abortion, gun control, medical malpractice reform are so decisive you are not going to convice a die-hard to swap sides) to issues like strict constructionism vs. writer intent, the growing welfare state vs. providing constitutionally mandated services (Defense and ...), and free-markets vs. a command economy
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
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
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?
> Just because someone says we should worry does not mean we should
> listen to Chicken Little and worry without reason.
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.
"Life is great; without it, you'd be dead." -Harmony Korine
You bigot
I am not a bigot. The president has publicly made moral judgements about people (lately about gays and lesbians), which is reprehensible, given that he is the president of a country with a constitution that dictates separation of church and state. The problem is that he himself is flagrantly bigoted against people that don't meet his own moral criteria.
This is the United States of America for cripes sake. This is an issue of personal freedom from religous persecution and freedom to conduct our lives as we see fit. It is very sad that so many US citizens are so comfortable with making their nation into a representative theocracy, when our founding fathers gave them right to be free from such an aboimination.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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
Well, except he wants everyone to be a good little monotheist or their opinion doesn't count....
As for facts, you mean like that Nigerian Nuke contact Saddam had? Sorry, but whether he's doing it knowingly or not, he's misleading the country.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
" 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.
There are signifigant differences in republicans and democrats...
Only on the surface. Either party's policies result in bigger government, political entrenchment, and institutional mediocrity. Whether it is a failing welfare program or a failing pork barrel defense project makes no difference in the long term.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
These views are not connected to any church...
How so? There is no ambiguity about this administration's religious alignment.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
"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.
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.
...republican's are the current best way to get our message across for smaller gov't and lower taxes.
I agree with this, if the current administration's republicans are excluded. Oddly allocated tax cuts in spite of a half a trillion per year budget deficit, highly debated foreign military interventions, and domestic spy programs don't sound like they mesh well with the Libertarian agenda.
I look at "defense pork" as a lot less damaging as "Welfare pork".
This is true, but both are wasteful and ultimately increase taxation. Very often pork-barrel projects are borne from piles of money looking to get spent, even if no real value is generated other than cycling a few paychecks around. In a way, defense pork is effectively welfare but with more acronyms.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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)
If the president espoused views that were backed by no organized religion whatsoever, would you start claiming violation of the "separation of church and state" due to the obvious agnostic or atheistic stance?
Only a small subset of those things considered moral can be argued as such without relying on religion (i.e., is it much easier to form a religion-independent argument about murder than it is for homosexuality).
The president's public statements exhibit arbitrary moral judgements that ware formulated only in the context of his religion. This isn't about keeping religious people from public office, this is about keeping religious zealots out of public office. If a public official can't be modest and objective with regards to what is and is not moral, then that person is not qualified for that position.
The U.S. government's duty is to maintain basic civil order while the people are otherwise free to do what they want. If any citizen is ostracized or repressed due to laws or policies that are solely based on arbitrary moral decisions by religious public officials, then that is nothing less than a great injustice. Yet, we have laws in states like North Carolina and Texas which do nothing but arbitrarily regulate people's sexuality. This is simply insane.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
No evidence, except that he says that people who are wiccans don't have a "legitimate" religion, and the military should make no accomodations for them. Sorry, but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a damn duck, and wiccans are just as religious as anyone else, no matter what the bigot in chief may think to the contrary. here's the information on his position, and his lame ass dodge of "his personal beliefs" doesn't make it any better.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I would have applauded greatly if every dollars worth of tax cut had been met with a $1.01 of spending cuts, but at wartime that is a little hard to pull off if you are gunning for reelection next year. Bush will have 4 years with a republican congress to really test out Reganomics in an environment similar to Reagan's second term and I for one will gladly take a 3.75 year massive economic growth period 84-4Q87 (and 3 years of moderate growth until the 1990 tax increase) with another 6-9 month recession if it means my retirement will double itself in that time and I can afford to buy a home and a truck every 3-5 years. First on Bush's choping block on Jan 21 2005 should be the eventual planned phaseout of all of FDR and JBJ's socialist pork. That alone would help the american economy much more than finding those 1000 $600 hammers
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
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
I'm much more in favor of individuals making unlimited donations but no group donations at all, no NRA, no labor unions, no Greenpeace, and no Halibutron, since they can't vote, they should not be able to fund canidates, but that might get some people in a tizzy on both sides of the asile and Nader wouldn't like it either.
I'd agree to a term limit amendment if it went something like this..
- President - 3 4 year terms
- Senator - 2 6 year terms
- Representative 6 2 year terms
that gives you at most 42 years in Washington (assuming we kept the same rules on replacement terms for your predecessor dying or resigning), it is not fair that the president is term limited but congress isn't but it has to be done with an admendment to be done right.09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
The president's religion does not matter except that he considers atheists non-citizens and that God speaks to him directly, telling him to invade Iraq and end terrorism.
cpeterso
Wicca was something made up by some guy about 100 years ago.
When some guys MADE UP Christianity 2000 years ago, Judiasm was already 2000 years old! What makes Christianity more valid than Wicca and not less valid than Judiasm?
cpeterso
his religion wouldn't matter if he didn't make it an issue constantly, this man actually asks world leaders he meets to pray with him. i have no problem with christians, but the process of deciding public policy shouldn't involve clasping your hands and looking to the heavens and waiting for a divine voice to guide you. this argument isn't even taking into account how shitty a job he does, either, just the way he goes about doing a shitty job.
"Life is great; without it, you'd be dead." -Harmony Korine
Have we really gotten to the point where we want an amoral President?
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
*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.
> > "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").
Yeah, here's his latest attempt to save us from the bonds of ignorance.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Waxman likes bad science as long as it is used to support his agenda. This is all politics, and nothing more.
Exactly. Anyone who criticizes this administration has an "agenda" and that alone proves that they are not to be trusted.
I'm much more in favor of individuals making unlimited donations but no group donations at all, no NRA, no labor unions, no Greenpeace, and no Halibutron, since they can't vote, they should not be able to fund canidates, but that might get some people in a tizzy on both sides of the asile and Nader wouldn't like it either.
And no churches, handing out "voter guides" to their armies of obedient sheep. If they're going to enter the political sphere that way, they can start paying taxes like the rest of us.
I'm talking about unlimited hard money to canidates/parties with no soft money. People can still decide to vote as a block, the unions or the NRA are free to hand out voter guides or produce independent ads, but the parties and canidates can have no direct or indirect money except from eligible voters.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Of course he did. In fact now he's lying about lying. The CIA warned Bush that the information was bad, but he really didn't care. But worse than lying, Bush is a collaborator (after the fact) with those who perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11/01...
Yes. That's right. You heard what I said. What were the terrorists' primary goals? No not to kill many innocent people. Their primary goal was to make America less free. They wouldn't have been successful if it hadn't been for their friend Dubya. All the patriot acts and most other measures passed by his administration to protect Americans against terrorism have had the primary effect of making Americans less free.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
"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.
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?
You need to have more sex
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.