Vint Cerf and Others Form Advocacy Group

Omega writes "Vint Cerf, father of TCP/IP, and several Nobel Prize winners have formed a 527 committee called 'Scientists and Engineers for Change.' Among their major complaints are that the Bush administration has ignored and misused scientific findings to achieve political goals and that it has stifled scientific research. While the group isn't officially endorsing Kerry, Dr. Cerf points out it's pretty obvious what their goal is."

Comments

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Vint Cerf, the father of TCP/IP, formed a 527 something-or-other, but he couldn't be bothered to make a fucking website! How does he expect to rally support from the rest of us?

Good Lord!!

[SimianOverlord]

What? Politicians misuse scientific findings for their own political goals? What an amazing insight!! Perhaps Vint Cerf et al. should get a reality check - this isn't a George Bush problem, though his problems with science have admittedly been flagrant ie global warming, Kyoto. I don't see how Kerry or anyone would be any different, it is the system, not the political party that misuses science. Most of it is from a misunderstanding of the process involved. There is nothing hard and fast to grasp in science. Most theories form, are disproved or modified, continuing indefinitely. Even the most basic axioms of biology have to have their addendums and footnotes because there are always exceptions to every rule, and on contentious issues (global warming is a good example), well, wait 50 years and then you can look back over the equally convincing, committed camps and make a decision of who is more likely to be right on the preponderance of the evidence.

Many groups misuse scientific research for their own motives. The media for instance is one of the worse, publishing dubious claims as scare stories to ultimately sell newspapers i.e. HRT links with cancer, danger of the pill, MMR scandal, GMO /GM food to name a few recent UK ones. This appears to me to be a thinly veiled political attack. I'm no fan of Bush, but I feel this is wrong. Scientists should not use their status to give political affiliation a veneer of legitimacy, as our opinions are no more valid than truck drivers, shop assistants or lumberjacks.

Re:Obvious

[Profane MuthaFucka]

What a pile of shit. Why is it that the Republicans can find a bunch of people to trash talk Kerry, but when it comes to finding a single person who saw GW Bush show up for duty there's nobody - NOBODY - who can remember him?

If you believe all the lies about Kerry, then there's something wrong with your BS detector.

Re:The difference is...

[Alsee]

Just because something weighs against choosing Bush does not make it Bush bashing, does not make it partisan, and most of all does not make it false.

Restoring Scientific Integrity is not Bush bashing. (The link says 60 signers on Feb 18, it soon included 48 Nobel laureates and thousands of other scientists.) It is from over 7 months ago. It is not about the election and it does not call for Bush to be replaced! I have yet to hear anyone claim there is a single thing false or unjustified. It's objection is:

"Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle."

It then cites many specific examples of problems.

It calls for the current government to:

return to the ethic and code of conduct which once fostered independent and objective scientific input into policy formation; and

Advocate legislative, regulatory and administrative reforms that would ensure the acquisition and dissemination of independent and objective scientific analysis and advice.

Over half a year ago it effectively called on Bush to fix a specific problem within his administration. It is unfortunate that Bush failed to do so.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Bush bashing! Bush bashing!" makes YOU partisan and biased.

Even they can be partisan. I'm sure there are just as many who support Bush.

It is doubtless that some of the signatories do or did support Bush. It is also doubtless that some of the people from this non-partisan group have joined the partisan 527 committee to defeat Bush exactly because Bush failed to stop his administration from misrepresenting and suppressing scientific results and meddling in the production of independant and objective scientific analysis and advice.

You may certainly find Nobel laureates who support Bush, but I defy you to find Nobel laureates who reject this Restoring Scientific Integrity paper. It happens to weigh against Bush (if you value independant and objective science anyway). If you like Bush, well tough luck. Everyone has flaws and this is one of Bush's flaws. He runs an administration with little or no respect for independant objective science. Deciding other factors outweigh scientific advice is a fact of life, but currupting the scientific process itself is unacceptable.

You can decide to support Bush for other reasons, but dismissing this Bush bashing is a copout. Maybe you find Bush good on abortion or good on terrorism, but Bush runs an administration that is bad on science.

-