Slashdot Mirror
More Accusations of Scientific Abuse by the Bush Administration
Saeed al-Sahaf writes "Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists released new evidence that the Bush Administration continues to suppress and distort scientific knowledge and undermine scientific advisory panels. Of course we're not talking about such subjective issues like stem cell research which Bush objects to on religious grounds. Here we are talking about money. The cases discussed in this story detail incidents of suppression and distortion of scientific knowledge on issues ranging from mountaintop removal strip mining to endangered species such as wild Salmon in the Pacific Northwest."
...when an AC can get a fp while home sick. viva la revelucion!
Perhaps this is the science the submitter wishes the current administration was using...
Because the Union of Concerned Scientists is right up there with the Clown College in my book.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Let's keep this rated G.
Then I got a reply.
The reply gently and wisely pointed out that "politics" is what makes things happens. "Politics" makes public school and thus high literacy possible. "Politics" is what puts police on the streets to keep us safe. "Politics" is what the Constitution is all about.
The letter went on to note that while the White House obviously didn't dispute my data, any scientific finding must have an *interpretation* put on top of it to make it useful. The letter writer indicated several points on which I had to admit my interpretation was colored by my political views and that the White House interpretation was more conservative (scientifically) than mine.
That letter writer was George W Bush. The man I will be voting for on November 2.
It's news for nerds and the article was covered on google news yesterday anyway. Look, I can't stand bush, but reading stuff like this is *not* why I read slashdot. Surely there's better tech-related articles that can be covered.
Moderators - discussion of the relevence of an article should be on-topic. If you disagree, post a reply, don't just mod me down.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
It's nice that the Slashdot moderators have a place where they can spew their political attacks. Since this will get modded down into the basement, I can only say I wish I had the same opportunity. BC
1) While I appreciate Minister al-Sahaf's acknowledgement that the issues around stem cells are matter of subjectivity, not a science-vs-faith issue like evolution, framing the debate in terms of "religious grounds" isn't all that much better. It's a question of ethics, like other bioethics issues.
2) The Union of Concerned Scientists is a wildly partisan organization, that leans heavily on getting large numbers of scientists to sign their statements and then acting as though that represents an informed expert opinion by the signatories. That doesn't invalidate any particular point they make, of course, but I'd like to examine these accusations on a case by case basis, rather than get excited about "x scientists, including y Nobel Laureates" signing another one of their screeds.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Wiccans count. So do Xians.
Grousing about the relevence of an article is inherently off-topic (and a troll) - if it wasn't relevent, the poster wouldn't have read it.
I was very outraged when my data on subatomic particle interaction was undermined for political purposes...Then I got a reply...That letter writer was George W Bush. The man I will be voting for on November 2.
As someone who generally favors Bush, I'm highly suspicious of the authenticity of this testimonial.
When the Union of Concerned Economists starts bashing Bush, then I'll be worried.
First of all, blaming the "Bush administration" for the actions of many varied government agencies is a bit disingenous. Does anyone suppose the FDA takes daily orders from the White House? Our government just doesn't work like that.
Second, what [these particular] scientists seem to lack is a sense of perspective. There are no solutions to real-world problems. There are only trade-offs. Sure, it would be great to have perfectly clean water, but at what point is "clean enough?" How much effort do you spend saving one endangered species?
If your answer to any of these is "more!" then you haven't considered that our society, government, companies and individuals can only spend so much money and effort. Spending it all on one area leaves other, possibly more important areas unattended to.
Science is about finding ideal solutions. Politics, and economics, is about managing a finite number of resources to accomplish things. Yes, it hurts when you recommend that a rare swan be saved and nobody listens, but it's likely you don't have any clue what the trade-off would be.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
What I see are a bunch of claims that the administration had censored reports, removed officials from key positions, and otherwise affected the reports being made. However, no proof of these claims are offered.
Questions:
I can make unsubstantiated claims that the UCS are a bunch of aliens from Jupiter that have come here to suck our brains out. You won't believe me, of course, because I have no evidence. The UCS makes a bunch of claims that it doesn't back with evidence either.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Check this out:
White House Tries to Rein In Scientists
Remember when the Arab world led scientific thought? They invented and led math, geometry, an alphabet, astronomy, engineering, etc. Then the fundies took over. Arab versions of Bush and Pat Robertson.
While these are most certainly accomplished people, no doubting their genius, that doesn't prevent them from having a political agenda. And contrary to what scientists will tell you, some do have political agendas. They're human, after all. Einstein became an enthusiastic proponent of socialism at the end of his life. So, because he was a brilliant physicist, does that mean he was right about politics?
Most of the things the UCS is complaining about are political hot button issues as well as scientific ones.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Lots of geeks seem to be lefties as well. They'll protest, tell you that they're really libertarians or whatnot, but almost all of them have been drifting left here for awhile now. Slashdot USED to be more of a libertarian bent, but that's changed.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Fundamentalism had nothing to do with the fall of Arab culture. In fact, Islamic fundamentalism is more or less a twentieth century invention, whereas Islamic culture lost its "edge" around the time of the Renaissance. Rather, the fall of Arab culture had a lot to do with a society and an economy that was utterly dependent on constant expansion to maintain itself. When no more expansion was available (thanks to geographical boundaries for the most part) the culture began to go into decline.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
He sounds like Winston Smith after his stay at the Ministry of Love.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
See that great big yellow sidebar on the right side of all the ucsusa pages, with "Reports", "Cases", and "Activism" headings? It takes up nearly half of each page. The "Cases" section, as you might surmise from the name, contains links to specific pieces of evidence.
/. summary contains a "Related Links" box with a link to a 351k PDF. (The text is "Read the new report".)
l icationID=877
l icationID=730
The page linked to in the
Here's the link, in case you still can't find it:
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?pub
Here is the full report, published in February:
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?pub
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
Greenwatch, not a member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' lists UCS as part of the 'radical left': here
The Washington Times says here that the UCS is funded entirely by the left:
WHY, oh WHY does this kind of stuff surprise anyone anymore?
Get used to it.
This whole crew is the Anti-Google.
I took one look at that headline, and said to myself...
"That has to be michael who posted it."
Once again, I was right. Michael really needs to be fired. Oh ya, and michael, I no longer have mod points (despite excellent karma), and you've modded down my comments to -1, but I can still meta mod. You should take that away from me too.
No one with even a small understanding of the scientific process, let alone an interest in scientific progress, can vote Republican in good conscience. Why? Because both wings of Republican party are actively opposed to scientific progress. They will slow walk, whitewash, and when all else fails, flat out lie, to prevent or obscure the truth.
On the buisness side you have those that ignore 30 years of studies concluding that the average global temperature is increasing, and that this increase is directly caused by human activity. ("Needs more study.") You have those that lie before congress, and in congress, that nicotine is not addictive. Then you have those that spout such nonsense that trees cause polution and ketchup is a vegetable.
Then from the religious wing you've got those not only opposed to teaching evolution and the Big Bang, but promoting that world was formed on a tuesday afternoon 5000 years ago. They've even enlisted the federal govenerment to promoting the myth that the Grand Canyon didn't take million of years to form, but rather was formed over the course of a few hours after a global flood.
Please don't even think the Wash Times are anything like a neutral news media
This isn't about ethics, this is about the administration ignoring data.
Photos.
Since when has the right been a friend of the environment (hint, you have to go back to the '70s).
The right spends most of its time looking to say that the environment is just fine and we can just forget about it. Bush just opened tons of federal lands to damaging roadwork for christ sakes.
As for your other two sources, The white house is a part of this agenda and the washington times is the rapidly right wing baby of rev. moon. It doesn't even earn a profit (moon funds its yearly losses), it's a vanity publication to elect bush.
What we have here is two conflicting sides. Now, on one side I see lots of documents, papers, and distinguished scientists. On the other I see a handful of sellouts and a whole bunch of rhetoric.
You're damn right they're on the left, the pro-business right wouldn't take them anyway.
Photos.
Notice that the poster does not question the report, the content, the methodology -- he attacks the credibility of the people making the statement.
it was cancelled under the justification that it would disturb the local wildlife
It would have been built over an abandoned parking lot populated by winos and homeless people.
Not any more. I've gotten to know some, and while we disagree, I understand their viewpoint.
For my money, what's been going on is the Republican party has been hijacked, just as surely as the Taliban hijacked Afghanistan. It's been taken over by business "interests" to the point that public policy is not created without it being directed in some way towards making someone money.
A good friend of mine is a policeman at the VA hospital where I work. He's clearly very conservative, and I'm quite the opposite, and we're both vets. We don't agree on much but we enjoy talking. One thing we do agree on: this is not the country we promised to defend. We don't know where it is, what happened to it or when, but we're both damn sure this ain't it.
And I doubt the Democrats are much different, except for the fact that the richer and therefore more powerful "interests" have collected within the Republican party, leaving the Dems weaker.
I've seen exactly this sort of political driving of science done at NIH. If it's not popular with the administration, you risk your career to pursue it, and it's a damn long way to fall if you fall from NIH.
The US is losing its edge in science in part because researchers are not moving to the US to work, and some US researchers are leaving.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
"You may think you're getting cheap stuff out of this, or the economy will do better, but it will wind up costing you more in the long run."
AMEN BROTHER. If there is anything I've seen in the republican party it is a complete blindness for the future. Environmental policy is just one place this is evident.
Consider also their foreign policy which consists of dropping as many bombs as quickly as possible. In the short run, yes, it'll quiet the world. However, the damage done to the reputation of the US in the world will probably not be repaired in the next 2 decades. If I get that eagle on my passport some day, I'll almost be afraid to use it to travel abroad. What good is all the money in the world if you can't enjoy but your own sliver of it?
Then the economy. As Bill Maher put it, isn't "tax and spend" better than "don't tax and spend"? What we're doing with deficits is just borrowing money. And guess who'll have to pay for that later - you and your children, with interest. Sure, it feels good to get your big screen TV now, America (i.e. new weapons systems), but you're condemning your children to a shittier future.
Then we get the social programs. The whole motto of the republican party is "smaller govt, less control." Let the rich get richer, screw the poor. Yet they cry when the inner city youth starts stealing shit from their houses so they can eat or start dealing drugs because there aren't any jobs. Then they send these kids to the state penn for 40 years for selling 10 joints, while Rush Limbaugh owns enough Ox to kill him 50 times over. (but I digress, that's hypocrisy, not blindness)
Finally, let's get to their choice of a presidential candidate. Instead of picking somebody half-way decent, like McCain (and even he disappointed me horribly with his latest support for the idiot-in-chief), they go right back to Bush, knowing what a fuck up he is and how divisive he is to the country, and how many of our kids he killed for his stupid ideals.
That might be good for them in the short run, because of all the money Bush spent of advertising himself just might win them the presidency again, but if the tide turns (and judging by this group of scientists, it's already turning) there will be a major backlash against the republicans for the next 10 years.
Shortsighted. Fucking blind.
"If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
"I think you're suffering from outrage fatigue. See 'The Onion: Nation's Liberals Suffering From Outrage Fatigue'".
No doubt about it. In fact in my case, "outrage despondency" might be more accurate.
As it happens, I'm not a liberal. I'm eclectic. (Although the Republican Party has given us the two Presidents most threatening of civil liberties and separation of powers, the two most imperious and cynical and morally corrupt Presidents -- concerning *national* issues -- in my lifetime.) And there's a non-trivial number of card-carrying conservatives who share some of my concerns.
Lately I've begun to think that a Kerry victory will make little difference. Things like the Patriot Act are undone only with the greatest difficulty, especially with such a polarized electorate and closely-divided (and likely to remain so) Congress.
The Great American Experiment succeeded (at least for a while, and excepting slavery, native Americans, and the era of Manifest Destiny) because there was always enough room for the individual to navigate one's boat between the rocks -- and if not, one could always escape to the frontier. One could always find a place and an opportunity to Start Over, to perpetually remake one's self -- largely due to a tradition of jealously guarding the principles of individual liberties and limited-purpose limited-power government.
Can you imagine what the Founders would have thought of a central government which wishes to record and monitor every act of its own citizens, to effectively confine the vote to the landed gentry, to give the Executive Branch the power to conduct secret searches, forbid the disclosure of those searches after the fact, detain persons indefinitely without benefit of counsel, claim immunity (without using the word) to disclosing its actions to Conress, sanction torture -- ALL without judicial review, and thinly clothed with totalitarian-sounding use of words like Patriot and Homeland?
I no longer regard the US as the best (free-est) place to live on earth. In all seriousness, I've started to make plans to emigrate, before DHS starts to require national ID-cards, internal passports, and Exit Permits with retina-scans.
I don't understand what it means not "on religious grounds."
Can't he be religious about money?
How hard is it to understand that any given research project, research group, research lab does not have a guaranteed right to government funding?
More scientific evidence of the real bush is here
Watchout you terminator!
Senthil
Exactly!
It's like, say, you turn into a zombie. Company A creates a gun that will blow you away, but you come back to life a few hours later. Company B creates a gun that will kill you permanently. Guess which company will sell more guns? Company B, of course! Even though their guns are more expensive because they shoot silver bullets. But since the gun only has to be used once per zombie, it's cheaper for the zombie killer and more profitable for the gun manufacturer. Everybody comes out ahead (well, except for company A and the zombies).
So it just stands to reason, a permanent cure is more profitable than temporary treatment.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
As time passed, more and more types of people became enfranchised, until today every adult human non-felon has the right to vote, even the mentally retarded.
(Personally, I believe that felons should have the right to vote, and that people who do not have the mental capacity of an adult should not.)
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Godwin's Law, you lose.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
You're not alone. Lots of Americans are getting out while they still can. America is heading in a scary direction, and no-one seems to care.
UCS also published a report on Clinton. It also discussed policies where that administration abused science in making policy. I signed that report, too. Kind of undermines the whole "UCS is crazy liberal" claims.
_ _______
I have not read everything the UCS has ever published. I totally agree with the reports I have read and signed. All they are saying is that if you are going to say a decision is based on science, you have to include the science in the report.
________________________________________
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
Website: www.thislife.org look up show number 265: fake science. Act two has the relivant part: "Act Two. Government Science. The Union of Concerned Scientists has issued a report condemning the Bush Administration for what it called "distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict" Administration policies. One of the cases sited in the report involves something called the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning. Alex Blumberg reports on the fights over who'll serve on the committee, fights in which each side believes the other practices fake science. (14 minutes)"
Apparently, one of the people appointed to this Advisory Committee has never done any research on lead poisoning. He is a pediatrician. He sees children, assumedly some may have had lead poisioning. He just feels it is not a big problem. He doesn't feel they get it from paint. He testifies to this in court (in suits against paint manufacturers).
And maybe children don't get lead poisioning from paint - I'm not saying I'm an expert.
However, probably the people on the committee should actually should be.
___________________________________________
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
... and that is the gotcha that a lot of people don't seem to understand.
Scientists don't agree on the conclusions of various cliques whithin their own community based on the science or the methods used to reach a conclusion.
In addition, we're seeing politics "shaping" the outcome for studies paid for with tax dollars. The $500M the US Congress spent to study the effect of chemicals like Freon on the ozone layer in the 90's and NASA's report on "holes" in the ozone also during the 90's, are just two examples. Both efforts were rife with politician's pressuring the people involved toward a particular outcome. It's a tainted process and the conclusion becomes questionable.
To allow interest groups like this to influence public policy is akin to allowing any particular BAR association to vet judge nominees.
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
subpontibian
Alright, no one mentioned souls or spirits but you. Do you accept that it is possible to advance the belief that life (or at least human life) is important in some manner without having a religious angle?
If so, then explain why passing through a vagina (or a surgical opening) changes a newborn from property to a person. Explain, then, why only partially passing through it (as in some late-term abortion methods) does not.
If you use the "dependent on the mother" argument, please explain why it's not okay to kill the child after birth. Would an advance in technology that allowed for the child to develop to term in an artificial womb be grounds for banning abortion since a child would no longer be dependent on the mother? If not, when does a tank-grown child gain personhood and why?
If you use the developmental stages argument, explain why a 5 month-old prematurely birthed baby has human rights that a 6 month-old fetus still in a womb does not.
In my opinion, the best atheistic argument against abortion is that all dividing lines for determining personhood are either arbitrary and/or hypocritical. Birth is arbitrary. Developmental stages can be hypocritical in the face of the rights of premature babies and can be arbitrary and hard to determine. The only absolute for determining humanity is fertilization, when the number of genes in the egg cell equals that of a full-fleged diploid human organism.
Restated: Show me one (non-Buddhist) atheist who is ethically against stem cell research.
I assume by "atheist" you restrict the category to people who weren't raised in a religious setting, right? I can't do that, but I do know former Christian atheists and agnostics who object. You could argue that their beliefs are influenced by religion, but they've managed to cling to a belief in the "sanctity" of life even after no longer truly believing in God. It is rare, though. Most become very utilitarian about the issue.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Ok, so the Bush administration is not perfect, we all knew that already. But the continual attacks on Bush for going to war in the first place is becoming annoying. Isn't it enough that the once tyranical ruler has been removed from power? Why do these people have such short memories?
Whether Saddam had, or had the ability to aquire WMD's is beside the point in my opinion. I believe it was in the interests of all, and especially the people of Iraq, that the tyrant was removed.
I couldn't think of a sig.
and that this increase is directly caused by human activity. ("Needs more study.")
The reason it needs more study is because it is still not a proven theory.
The current popular idea is we're bad and making a mess, and it is likely right. What we don't know is if human activity is the only cause, or if there is another factor. What about historical climate patterns, we know they are there.
Why people can vote when they are 18 and not when they are 17 or 19? I know a 16 year old way smarter than most of my 22 pals. A limit has to be drawn somewhere, be it 1/3 of gestation or out of the womb (artificial or natural, doesn't really matters) or whatever limit you want, but I am all for not letting the raped mother or the 16 year old mother going through the suffering of non wanted gestation of a bastard child. I was raised as a Christian but I no longer believe in god nor anything supernatural. I am a cinic, and I think that without religions we all would be much better. Don't fuck to stop VIH rather than using condoms? That's just utterly stupid. Even better, let's all get castrated so we no longer have sexual desire. I love animals, I just was given a 6 week kitten and I will fight whoever or whathever tried to hurt it. I would never hurt an animal if avoidable. But I am not vegetarian and I think killing a non-self aware being is acceptable is the reason is *good enough*. That is, I approve medical research with animals, but not cosmetic research with them. I think human life level 'sacredness' or importance in relation to animals comes with self-awareness. Anyway, I don't think a human being is much more sacred than an animal. I find completely non-sensical people who is against abortion but for death penalty, like most so called pro-lifers are.