Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Finding
tree3075 writes "The LA Times is reporting that a survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has found hundreds of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists have been instructed to change findings to favor business interests. I'm not surprised anymore when I read these things."
Scientists were saying the same thing just under a year ago...
Who is behind "Activist Cash"?
Don't get me wrong, it does look like the UCS is partisan. But it's not like the rebuttal is coming from a totally neutral voice, either.
There were under 800 cattle from mad cow affected countries imported into Canada before the importations were stopped. And the US imported over 1600 cattle from affected countries.
Yet Canada has found 3, before they entered the human or animal food chains, and the US found one after it was partly processed. Tell us who is doing a better job of detecting mad cow in North America?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Agree with your last point.
And you're right the poster was planning ahead, but there was no need to make it Republican/Democrat. Both comments you linked talked about "Bush" and the "Bush administration"; in my opinion, dividing it into parties is useless (since party definitions are so vague and candidates vary widely.)
He was defending the Republican party, when really he needed to defend Bush to be effective in the main thread. Luckily I think we've avoided a useless party-war thread here...
I love the numbers of this survey.
1400 polled 400 responded.
Of those 400 46% said that they were being pressured so 184.
The story really is 13.14% of scientists polled agreed with our leading questions. And look at some of the actual questions and responses
24. In my experience, scientific documents generally reflect technically rigorous evaluations of impacts to listed species and associated habitats.
strongly agree agree don't know disagree strongly disagree
7.5% 54.3% 13.8% 18.1% 4.3% 25.
USFWS strives to substantially incorporate independent peer review in formulating and validating scientific findings.
strongly agree agree don't know disagree strongly disagree
7.7% 52.2% 16.4% 18.8% 3.6%
26. I have been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a USFWS scientific document.
frequently occasionally seldom never not applicable overall
2.2% 8.9% 9.2% 68.8% 10.4%
Overall the polls show a good amount of the usual worker problems (We need more money, we don't trust upper management, ect...), but the part about economic and political pressure doesn't specify about who is applying the pressure.
They could just as easilly be getting pressure from groups like PETA to increase the number of species declared endangered.
PBRs are the type I'm most familiar with, but there are other designs (e.g. CANDU) that are similarly less dangerous, more stable, and less waste-creating than your standard ol' fashioned water-mediated fuel rod reactor.
Yes, but that's true of *any* kind of power plant. By that logic, we shouldn't have power plants at all."Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
You, sir, are an idiot.
Of course he's planning ahead. Republican "yesism" is notoriously well organized. Bush "bashing" isn't even necessary any more; Republicans get mileage out of crying about it even when it doesn't materialize. When the fascists are on the march, their propaganda is always in order.
--
make install -not war
I will quote Carl Sagan, without need of further comment:
"... We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements--transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting--profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster."
--Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World)
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
This is a case where RTFA is almost worse than nothing. Not only is the article biased, but the survey and those who made it is biased - and their reporting of the results is beyond biased.
e su lts.pdf
Here's a link to the survey questions and results:
http://ucsusa.org/documents/FWS_questions_and_r
Reading the actual results of the survey tells a far different story than that reported by those conducting the survey - or the LA times who seem to have just regurgitated the PEER/UCS press release without doing any kind of actual reporting.
Based on their own survey results most respondants feel the opposite of what is being portrayed in this story. Most of them are happy with the FWS and don't feel pressured.
Of course also keep in mind that the FWS told it's employees not to respond to this survey (most likely because they knew UCS/PEER were just looking to create another hit piece since that's what PEER does full-time.) So those who did respond are already those who aren't good at following directions and are probably upset with their jobs for one reason or another.
That this even counts as news is either a testament to how liberally biased the LA times is or just how poor "news" reporting in this country has become.
--- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
1: The sun would orbit the earth, the center of our solar system.
2: It would be the nature of things to move, then stop.
3: People could breath in space.
4: The earth would have suddenly come into existance a tad over five millenia ago.
5: Humans would have suddenly formed a few days after the earth.
6: Evolution would NOT have been proven to occur in a laboratory.
Notice... the first three items are in the present tense. The last three are in the past. While the validity of the first three points are obvious, there is no validity to the last three. Why? Because as much as can be proven about present-day conditions, there is no true proof of the past. To say that you have proven history is to violate the scientific method, transferring theory into facts with no evidence.
I can give an equally plausible theory that counters what you have mislabeled as fact. An all-powerful God creates earth, so that it is in a condition to support life and mankind. This is done instantly, but the result is the same as if earth formed from "scratch" 4.5 billion years ago.
But, I cannot and will not call my theory fact. You also cannot call yours fact without violating the principals that we, as scientists, are supposed to be upholding. Which, if I recall, is the point of this discussion. NOT some attempt to defend something that would need no defense if it were actually true.
And yes, I am a scientist. I work in university research and am obtaining my graduate degree. Not all Christians are stupid, as you seem to imply.
America has become a facist state?
Hey, someone almost asking for me to post my favorite quote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
While the actual author of that quote is almost certainly Giovani Gentile (a political philosopher from whom Benito borrowed liberally), it's close enough for slashdot.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
They where either gullible or partaking in spreading the lie. With alot of help of the US corporate media as well.
Those that where part of the actual arms inspection in Iraq noted that Iraq did not have any WMD capability, or it was very unlikely. The head of UN arms inspection more or less said so in his report to the Security Council.
The WDM lie, like the lie that Saddam was behind 9/11, was just pretexts to invade and occupy a country in order to control it's oil resources.
Must be tough keeping all those organizations strait.
Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
But here's the problem : in the current war on "terror", if you even try to see things from the perspective of your adversary, you are a sympathetic terrorist. Sympathetic = Guantanamo time, like Walker got. So, this is a little different then other wars, because the support for the "terror" war is such that if you step out of line at home, they can arrest you. In previous wars, there were demonstrations against why it was occuring, and you could expect not to be arrested. Now, you try that, you'll end up deported.
Just for fun, try walking down the street and seeing what people say to you when you ask them, "Why do you think OBL hates us?" I've gotten responses from "you're anti-american" to "why don't you go over there and fight for them".
So your 15 year time frame is a straw-man argument if there ever was one. Similar concerns have been voiced by many other science-interest groups; read pretty much any Scientific American editorial (or, even National Geographic) to learn more.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Actually, Galileo didn't change his mind. The Church did not oppress science, but rather, Galileo snubbed the Pope, after which the Pope refused permission to publish his work. So what initially might appear as oppression of science by the Church was in fact nothing more than a personal dispute.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Bugger all.
As I said before, I've no idea where the myth came from that volcanoes are a primary contributor to greenhouse gasses. It simply isn't true. I'm sure certain people wish it were true, and that explains why they keep repeating the myth, but it is NOT TRUE.