Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Challenge U.S. on Scientific Distortions
rocketjam writes "The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization which includes 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry. They also issued a 37-page report detailing the accusations. Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement. Numerous complaints from the scientific community about the administration's scientific policy-making prompted the The Union of Concerned Scientists to begin investigating the issue last summer. As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry." Other articles: Sydney Morning Herald, New York Times, The Guardian.
Trouble is, if you can't count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government, who on earth can you trust?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
"We have to find a way to reach out to them and try to come to an understanding"
Being scientists the touchy-feely "reach out" approach won't work. They'll have to come up with solid data to refute these claims.
Money is a double edged sword: it's necessary for science & research but it can warp the results to be more business friendly.. and if the results are skewed then it's not science, it's bullshit.
disclaimer: I work in the biomedical research industry but not in the U.S.
Trolling is a art,
Why are there 20 Nobel prize winners who can refute our findings, while we have an oaf as our head science guy?
Anything in parenthesis may (not) be ignored.
funding? what are your sources? i've noticed that the cry of the pro-dubyas is that any disagreement with the dubya's policies must in fact be from liberal sources. there are many other non-liberal folks (such as libertarians) who disagree with dubya's policies. and, of course, there are apolitical groups who disagree as well. i know it's convenient to put these things in their box so you feel justified in ignoring them. but...let's call this rationalization a severe deficiency in logical thinking.
This was the same group that said SDI wouldn't work back in '83-'84.
Yeah, all those "successful" SDI tests, right?
Now the problem becomes convincing any potential adversaries that they need to tell us when and where they plan to attack, and, oh yes.... would they mind terribly putting a radar beacon on any incoming warheads?
Q: Mr. President, where are the weapons of mass destruction you said were in Iraq?
A: Saddam was an evil man who tortured his citizens.
Pakistan is not really that hostile (except to India) and they are MUSLIM not ARABIC.
Umm... in 1980s terms they were absolutely 100% correct. Reagan proposed SDI to protect the USA from an all-out Soviet bombardment. The UCS said blocking 1000ish missiles at the same time would be prohibitively expensive (maybe quadrillions of dollars) if not impossible.
20 years later, we've got preliminary testing of anti-missiles that might be able to knock out at most a dozen incoming warheads, in a narrow region of airspace. Not nearly the same thing.
We also see the imminent demise of HST. I know the timing is apparently just coincidental, but some speculate that killing off the Shuttle program now has a lot to do with the potential budget pressures imposed by the Mars travel.
I don't mean to disparage the idea of manned travel to Mars. I think it would be as nifty as the next person, and the advances required will no doubt produce ancillary technological benefits that will benefit everyone. However, the current leaning seems to be toward severely damaging existing and planned space astronomy to get there. Not good.
I'm not surprised by the lack of concern in the general population. We've still got school districts that are fighting to keep evolution out of the public schools! I'm afraid too many people's idea of science are shows like "FOX Special - "Conspiracy Theory: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?" If we as a society don't understand science, then our leaders will get away with shuffling off pseudo-science, self-serving, political-oriented junk on the country. If anyone wants a good read, Carl Sagan co-wrote this awesome "book about science vs. ignorance. /rant off
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
The Bush administration has started to get into a bad habit of saying things it can't back up, when simply telling the truth would have been good enough.
We had a legit reason to invade Iraq, it just wasn't the one the administration was talking about. At the end of the first Gulf War, the peace treaty said that Iraq would not have WMDs, and the UN would get to have uninterfered with inspections to make sure they didn't. Iraq was playing games with the inspectors, so we couldn't be sure that they didn't have any WMDs. That alone is a justification to attack, they had broken the deal that ended the first war.
They were playing the hidden ball trick and making it look like they had WMDs. That was the reason Saddam had to go, because we couldn't take the risk that he just might have the ability to give his WMD program to Al Queda.
But, instead of saying that it was a worst case situation that we should have the ability to prove isn't happening but can't, the Bush administration took it a step foward and said that Iraq actually did have WMDs, and it turns out Saddam had the biggest bluff in history working. Saddam and the people around him sure thought they had WMDs, but the truth turns out to be that his scientists couldn't come up with the goods but were too scared of him to say they faied. Oops...
Had Bush just stuck to what he knew was true, he could have justified the war with a weaker but still good enough justification. But, instead, he over inflated the information, and now he's got a credibility problem that infects nearly everything else he says. He ended up doing a right thing but for the wrong reasons...
Bias helps to understand why someone takes a view and also what facts/theories/ideas they might be ignoring or not telling you about. It doesn't tell you what is right or wrong. While I have a bias against the Bush administration and their policy of allowing affected business to write their own regulations (e.g. Cheney and the secret meetings over energy policy), those businesses have knowledge that is useful to the process (they know things about their businesses and their process use that others wouldn't know) and should have input into what happens. The UCS has a bias as well, but they are made up of smart people who might also know something. The bias of these groups doesn't negate the validity of their arguments. Ultimately, the facts will out - the biases will explain why the UCS looked into these issues but do not deny the validity (or lack thereof) of their results.
But that's not exactly what this group is claiming. They're not questioning the final decisions the Bush Administration has made, but claiming that invalid science is being used to back up the decisions, essentially using bad science as a cover story because if they stated the real reason, it might not be accepted by the public as easily.
I think you mean "Right-wing" .
This is the same administration who has essentially trampled your civil liberties as well.
This is the same administration who have turned a $200billion surplus into a $700billion deficit.
This is the same administration who wants to remove Evolution from schools and teach Creationism.
This is the same administration who thinks that abstience is the only topic which needs to be discussed in Sexual Education.
What's trampling over the scientific process?
Don't be a zoa (zealous overbearing ass), be happy!
All these corruptions and political BS is going to abuse our scientific and military strength.
It's almost inevitable that history repeats itself. US is on track to crash and burn like the Roman Empire.
We'd all be better off if we would stick to discussing the facts rather than immediately questioning people's motivations. No matter what the political bent of these scientists is, the question is whether or not there is any truth in their charges and should something be done. Let's try to be adults.
Just a possibility: /. username, but at least you'll know my own biases (which I'm trying to change). I won't believe anyone who says they aren't even a little bit biased one way or another.
What if the report is to protect their reputation? It's feasible that 20 like biased scientists could group together to produce such a report that bolsters their previous findings as well as denounces the policies that were built on research by competing scientists. You can report scientific facts and still ignore other scientific facts that don't lead to the same conclusion and opinions as your own. Such research can draw extremely difference conclusions.
All I'm asking is that before you take Michael's "unbiased" commentary for fact, do some research of your own into these 20 scientists and I'll bet that you could draw pretty strong links from their findings to their funding.
I'm no Bush Administration lover, but I hate to see science bent for political reasons, to the right or the left. In the end, this could weaken valid environmental science, because we rush to use the data for our own political views. Example? Green Party. They could do more harm than good for environmental protection.
And for the record, I get flack for my
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
No, they're politicians plain and simple. They don't really believe creationism is a valid science, but they need to pander to the ignorant voters that do. Bible-thumpin', science-hatin' fundamentalists are a large part of the Republican base and must be pandered to in order to keep them from voting for Pat Buchanan.
Laureates in what, though? Is a Nobel prize winner for work in cosmology really worth listening on climatology? Does a prize for quantum physics give one the right to judge dangerous lead levels?
Nobel Laureates don't come a dime a dozen and they can't be bought
Bullshit. They can suffer from ideologies just as much as anyone. Some of the most ideologically blinkered people I have met in my life have had PhDs and were leaders in their professional fields. They get so many accolades in their field they think they can do no wrong elsewhere.
--- Ban humanity.
I hate to rain on the parade of science good, politician bad, but I find this absolute statement of scientific truth to be disturbing at best. As a research scientist, I think I have some authority to comment on this from a different perspective than joe average code warrior.
By definition of the scientific method, there are no scientific facts. We have theories, which we beleive to be true as long as they stand up to all known tests. The momment they fail to explain something, then a new theory is needed.
Why am I reminding you of this? Because in this posts, and others throughout the thread, there as been an assumption that the statements of my esteemed colleques are scientific facts or truths. In reality, what they are is an interpretation of the data by these scienties, often in fields which they are not experienced. This is much different than absolute truth. In particular, it is critically important when viewed in the context of the science issues listed. Although you may not have thought of it, none of these theories are completey proven, especially to a level as, say, the charge on an electron is 1.6 *10(-19) C.
Case in point, another poster in this thread said that global warming IS occuring by CO2, and there is no disputing this. Actually, this finding is under debate, and by serious climatologists at MIT and other places. It turns out that serious people with serious ideas can assert that the earth naturally undergoes temperature fluctuations. Remember the ice-age, and other climate related disasters occured long before fossil fuels. So, we can say that we know the earth is getting warmer. This si the scientific fact so carelessly alluded too in this thread. But, can we absolutely say we know the cause? The answer is no. Several models do explain the temperature rise. Many prefer the fossil fuel effect becuase it stems from a simple correlation. Nature is not always kind and phenomena can arise from complex factors we don't understand. So, the best and only valid approach is discuss how likely a model is to be the "true" case, and openly talk about where it succeeds and where it fails. The sad truth is, most of us have not seen such a discussion becuase falling into the trap of oil industry bad is such a temptation. Therefore, one viewpoint is forwarded in the media and popular culute. This IS a political idea. And, scientists are human and history is replete with us falling into group think for wrong causes. So, I ask anyone on this list, to take a step back, take a deap breath, and ask themselves what do I know, and from where do I know. You probably will find (much to your dislike) you know all these facts from newsweek, and can't answer simple questions such as under what conditions do these global warming models fail? What approximations were made. Until you understand this, please, please do not jump up and down and claim to know something.
Before flaming me, I ask you to realize that nowhere have I stated which models do I happen to believe. So, arguemnts along those lines while passionate, but false. All I am saying is that the issues are more complicated than meet the eye, and even 21 random noble laureattes are not omniciant.
There is room for debate. In fact, debate is healthy and should occur. If you believe exactly what they say, then you are just as dogmatic as you are accusing the Bush adminstration being.
My two cents,
Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Regardless of when the release time is, they make excellent points. I hate the fact that chosing an inoppourtune timing casts doubt on the results. What's more, it's not like we're in October, here. This is not a last-minute, obviously election-related item. We're still the better part of a year away! The timing of this report should not enter into the discussion.
Critique the MESSAGE, not the MESSENGER! Talk about the report itself, not the motivation for it.
Here, for example, is an article from September of 2002 on the same thing. That was more than two years before this year's election. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has cropped up before, not by a long shot; it's not even the first time it's come up on Slashdot (see this, or this, or this (referring to the article I referenced above).
For now, let's assume (wrong or wrong) that Gore is 100 times dumber than Bush. That still doesn't mean he would subvert science like Bush's administration has. Intelligent != ethical.
At any rate, Gore really has nothing to do with this. If you want to make a comparison that matters, tell me how Kerry, Edwards, or even Dean have been misused or suppressed science to further their political goals like Bush has.
Our alternative is not Gore because we can't go back and change the past. (No matter how much we want to.) Our alternatives are the guys that are going to be running in November, 2004.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Yes it does, unfortunately there is a fallacy regarding the second law of thermodynamics which is often used by creationists.
The second law of thermodynamics states that left to itself, the entropy (that is the amount of disorder) in a closed system can never decrease. Rooms get untidy, a cup of coffee cools down and heats the room and so on...
There are two important parts of the law that are forgotten by creationists:
It means that you can tidy a disorganised house apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics. All your shelves are neatly organised, the floor positively sparkles - order has been created from disorder. BUT to do that, you have had to use some energy and will have dumped unrecoverable heat into the wider environment.
Organisms are not closed systems, they are local pieces of order. They take in raw materials, use it to increase the amount of local order and dump heat energy into the wider environment.
The total amount of entropy in the Universe has increased, but locally it has decreased. The total amount of usable energy has decreased, the total amount of entropy has increased.
No contravention of the second law.
Best wishes,
Mike.
See, what y'all have to understand is, it's not politics, it's just that scientists hate bad science. When they see it, they just can't help themselves, they have to destroy it. And by destroy I don't mean bury or ignore it, I mean publicly tearing that faulty logic/research to pieces and sending the proponent of it packing with tears of shame in his/her eyes. They absolutely will not give up until the fool either admits s/he was wrong, proves they are right, or is so thoroughly discredited they can't even get anyone to listen anymore.
Why? Because when someone is clearly WRONG, they'll be damned if they let them pretend that they're right. And they especially hate it when psuedo-scientists try to use their profession.
Remember Galileo? Hundreds of years of attempted suppression, but they never gave up and never let anyone forget until the Church officially apologized. There were a lot of reasons for Vatican II, but I'd argue that the Church's losing battle against the forces of reason was the major one. Darwin? They're still fighting tooth and nail. States can pass laws allowing "creation science" but they soon find they're the butt of ridicule and have acquired a reputation for ignorance. If Junior has any brains at all (which is debatable) he'll quietly start leaving the science to the scientists... and if he doesn't he'll soon find his intelligence will be a rather large issue.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Um, Galileo was considered a heretic not because he was a scientist, but because he couldn't back a lot of his own claims up, and, because he also called the Pope an idiot.
Anyone who has taken an introductory course in the history of science knows that the reasons for Galileo's house arrest were complex. He did not believe that the Pope, who had been his friend, would let him fall to the inquisition. And for proof, all he needed to show were the moons of Jupiter that his discovered (and named after the Medici family - his patrons).
Similarly, much ado is made of how Copernicus had to "fight the power" of the church because he dared to propose the earth went around sun, but in reality tables produced from Copernicus's circular orbits were less accurate than their Ptolemiac predecessors.
Copernicus never fought the power. His book wasn't published until after his death.
The other thing that people forget is that science is a tool, not a means to an end. Science teaches us how to make things and how to better exploit the world around us. To say that there is an innate value system built around science is absurd. At the end of the day, there's little difference between Martha Stewart teaching how to put little curly cues on a cake, and a scientist teaching how to make an atom split. It's just an exotic Home Depot, and nothing more. As such, science must always take a back seat to political considerations and the popular will.
Science may be a tool, but it is a tool for understanding ourselves, the world around us, and the universe at large. And it does have a value system - it is simply that the truth will prevail through peer review.
To say that it teaches us how to better exploit the world is also a misnomer. It teaches us how things work - the exploitation comes in the hands of technologists and engineers who apply the knowlege.
Calling science an "exotic Home Depot" is absurd. Science does not build tools, it builds knowledge. It's more akin to the best-stocked library in the world than a home improvement store.
Saying that science must "always take a back seat to political considerations and the popular will" is ludicrous. Before important work by scientists, it was believed that tetrahedral lead was a perfectly innocuous additive to gasoline. The popular will wanted cheap gas that didn't make their car engines knock, and the political will was to keep the lead and oil companies happy by sweeping study after study pointing out the harmful effects of lead under the rug. It was only by the prolonged actions of scientists (and yes [gasp] environmentalists) that we are now breathing much less-toxic air. Politicians love nothing more than to protect the status quo (and prove that their opposition is a bunch of lying dogs even though they support nearly the same issues, but I digress), and the people are happiest when they're ignorant. It may be an unenviable task, but until the people and the government become interested in the truth, it will be up to scientists to push their ideas as hard as they can.
It must always tell the truth, to be sure, but we are under no obligation to abide by it or accept that what it teaches is useful or even valuable.
(I find it kind of ironic that you hold science to the standard of always telling the truth, but you don't put the same qualifications on politicians or the "popular will.")
We must, by definition, abide by the truth. If we did not accept Copernicus and Kepler's truth about how the planets really moved, or if we didn't accept Newton's laws, space travel would be impossible. Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, and is usually much more painful than just accepting it in the long run.
Finally, knowledge is always valuable. Let us not forget that knowledge = power.