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."
Can you say ad hominem?
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
Does anyone else find it odd that a story on "scientific abuse" was submitted by a Wiccan?
I don't follow your point. Are only christians allowed to comment on scientific abuse? Or are Wiccans assumed to be anti-science?
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Because the Union of Concerned Scientists is right up there with the Clown College in my book.
Admission standards to Clown College are a bit higher than I would have thought:
"62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers..."
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
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...
...my interpretation was colored by my political views ...
What was the "politicial" interpretation?
Your subatomic particle data was in favor of gay marriage?
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
That would be 4000 total, including "48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences."
Having said that, the context of this undermining is not clear. Certainly the administration may interpret scientific data any way they choose in forming political action, just as we are free to vote them out if we disagree with their policies or actions. Undermining access to the full set of data, however, should be a crime.
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.
"I don't follow your point. Are only christians allowed to comment on scientific abuse? Or are Wiccans assumed to be anti-science?"
You Wiccans think you got it bad? It's assumed us Jedi never reproduce!
"Derp de derp."
The reply gently and wisely pointed out that "politics" is what makes things happens. ...
That letter writer was George W Bush.
Ahh yes, King Bush the Wise. Please, God, somebody mod this guy up as funny.
Seriously though, how or better yet why, would you undermine data on subatomic particle interaction?
Now I'm inherently politically biased, but I voted for Bush once - which I won't do again - and let's face it, when I think of this administration, the term 'junk science' comes to mind. I was having a discussion with a colleague of mine, a Republican I should add, who told me that there's no proof that we're destroying the environment. He said for every study I had that proved one thing, he could find another study that proved me wrong. Let's see, right off the top of my head, there's deforestation, global warming, a limited oil supply, the ozone layer. And I'm absolutely sure he's right, he could find someone to refute it. So here I am, ready to point at any number of studies done on the environmental impact of the world, and I can't even convince the guy because some idiot somewhere posted his bunko, supposedly scientific refutation which would obviously back up this guy's point. It really makes me sad, too. It's obvious that oil, for instance, is a limited resource. And deforestation is occurring, whether or not you want to hear about it. It's obvious that we're affecting the earth.
Apparently you are unfamilar with President Bush's extensive background in particle physics.
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.
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
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."
The Washington Times says
You mean the newspaper owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the man who was recently coronated on Capitol Hill [entertaining account] in the presence of a number of Congressmen?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
>>It's obvious that oil, for instance, is a limited resource.
:p
> And why would this be the case? [...]
> It's worth it to be skeptical when extraordinary theories are presented.
Can I be skeptical of what you are implying? To my knowledge, there is a limited amount of material on earth (unless you count all that oil that comes from space dinosaurs), therefore, there must be a limited amount of oil on earth. I'm not saying that the article you pointed out is wrong, I haven't had to time to read through it, search for articles from known peer-reviewed systems and all that. I'm just saying that I believe that "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't".
Unlimited oil supply? I'm skeptical
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.
Wait, I want to get this straight.... You brought up a Washington Times story to refute an attack on a GOP administration?
Are you aware the Times is operated at a loss of $1 million a week by the Moonies as a propaganda tool? It's not a credible newspaper, especially when critiquing a GOP administration. Go do some research on the Times and the Moonies, it'll make you feel like you stepped into some bizarre world.
Uhm, Greenwatch is funded by the "vast right-wing conspiracy". Scaife funded organizations call anyone to the left of Attila the Hun, radical leftists. Please try discrediting the UCS again. Media Transparency
I haven't got time to go pick apart a 20 page doc right now, but I can't say that I trust much that comes from the White House these days. And about the guy being a life-long Dem, so's Zell Miller, but he's speaking at the GOP convention.
Quit listening to right wing media, it will rot your brain.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
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
Hmmm... you think that 4000 scientists have any more in common than ... oh wait, just their love of science?
Maybe their political agenda is to continue their research, and to have it listened to with utmost seriousness because they know WTF they're talking about?
I mean, what are the odds that 4000 people just woke up one day and said "let's fuck with a political party!"
"If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
Maybe so, but it didn't stop Newton and others of his time.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
"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.
The reason I have little respect for the UCS is their history of producing politically motivated bad research and calling it science.
Like their attacks on SDI in the 80's for instance, which were badly error-ridden. They calculated the number of satellites needed to target a massive Soviet missile barrage based on the line of sight to a single point on the globe, for instance, when the missiles in question were actually staged in an arc across the breadth of the Soviet Union. As a result, they estimated 2400 satellites were needed, when the number using the correct math was around 100.
Scientists can be as blind as anyone else, particularly outside their own field.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Sure, you get lots of christian scientists, but that's a contradiction in terms. Ask one of them about evolution or the creation of the universe, and watch their brains melt.
I'm not having a pop at christianity or wicca, heck - I'm all for some teachings from both schools of thought. I'm just fed up with people mixing up religion and science. With science, you can't have faith. You can have only proof.
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").