Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Decry Political Interference
RamblingMan writes "According to the BBC, the American Union of Concerned Scientists has put out a statement about the misrepresentation of date and a list of such interference by the U.S. government in scientific research. Besides the usual slew of Nobel Laureate signatories, they provide a number of examples besides the well-known example of the EPA's Global Warming Report." From the BBC article: "'It's very difficult to make good public policy without good science, and it's even harder to make good public policy with bad science,' said Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security. 'In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources.'"
According to the BBC, the American Union of Concerned Scientists has put out a statement about the misrepresentation of date and a list of such interference by the U.S. government in scientific research.
What do you expect from a man who can't even pronounce "Nuclear" properly? Honestly?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
No response from the International Quango of Massively Disinterested Mad Scientists yet, it appears.
No, its about the misrepresentation of data.
And, on that note, when thinking of misrepresentation, the phrase "Slasdhot editor" comes to mind.
yeah cause we all know how good the data ragaurding marijuana is www.norml.com
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
science goes wherever the government sees a critical priority, unfortunately nowadays many governments are controlled by money interests, this is what's really interfering in the relationship between science/politics.
As in 12.14.2006 instead of 14.12.2006 ? I thing the americans always misrepresent dates. Must be a sign of their crooked politics...
Even when the press puts such statements up for rebuttal to our president, he goes around the question, dodging it and then says "...we have a lot of work to do for the American people..."
I've often wondered if Al Gore tweaks the data in his global warming material as much as George "duhbua" Bush tweaked the intelegence reports that said there were WMD in Iraq.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
Science has been a contentious subject throughout history. Whereas in the past science was misused and constrained by the church, today it has been co-opted by politics. Scientific progress has continued nevertheless. I believe that scientists will continue to discover new and exciting things about the physical world regardless of the representation or supression of their discoveries. This is especially true when viewed from a global perspective.
Many scientific organisations came into being due to cold war era military etc funded exercises which were justified by political goals. Why should things be expected to change now?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Funding certain areas of scientific research instead of others is one thing; actively suppressing or ignoring the results of said research is entirely another. The executive branch has some control over what gets researched, and I'm basically OK with that; what I'm not OK with is the government's control of the results.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
"According to the BBC, the American Union of Concerned Capitalists has put out a statement about the misrepresentation of date and a list of such interference by the U.S. government in capitalist activity. Besides the usual slew of job creating investors, they provide a number of examples besides the well-known example of the EPA's Global Warming Report."
From the BBC article:
"'It's very difficult to make good public policy without good capitalism, and it's even harder to make good public policy with bad capitalism,' said Dr Warren Buffet, president of Berkshire Hathaway. 'In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of capital and I would say an increase of bad capital in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources.'"
First, we put all the scientists on one planet, except the "political scientists" (read Historiographers), who we put on another planet. Then, we let the terrorists blow up the known galaxy in a civil war, and send our boys back in to create an enduring civilization! Science wins! ;-)
Don't pull over
this time won't you please
drive faster
Because ideally scientists provide information for making decisions (military, financial, etc.). The same reason you check your weather before deciding to have a picknick.
And the same reason you look at a label on the bottle before deciding whether to drink it... Instead of drinking something first, then deciding what it should say on the label ("joro spider toxin?")
A recent example is Iraq:
What should have been: (WMDs found?) -> (if YES, should we go to war?) -> (if YES, go to war)
Instead we got: (we want to go to war) -> (WMDs found?) -> (if NO say YES) -> (if YES, go to war)
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
While I certainly don't approve of the way the current administration treats scientific research, the article seems to imply that it is bad for all science. No doubt the administration has hindered progress in areas that clash with its politics, such as climate change. However, there are plenty of areas not so politically turbulent that operate without interference. There are probably even some areas of scientific research that have benefited from the Bush administration, petroleum geology for instance. The Bush administration isn't necessarily bad for science, it's just bad for certain, politically sensitive, areas of science. I'm not taking issue with the report (like I said before, I don't approve of the way the administration has handled this), just the way that it has been presented.
It's very much possible, and used to be the norm. You don't need a recent scientific study from a top-tier university for knowing a _lot_ of things. Some things you just know; some things your parents taught you; and some things humans have learned over centuries. It's called "received wisdom."
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
More like "anti-American Comrades and Concerned Marxists".
http://www.ucsusa.org/
This is nothing more than an environmentalist wacko political action group. Take everything they say with a Costco-sized bag of salt.
Ok, climate change, acid rain, extinction of species, water resources, peak oil, blah blah blah -- I'll grant that's the domain of science.
But international peace?
The Israelis and Palestinians hate one another -- what role does science play in that?
"Well, after looking under the microscope, we now see that they don't hate one another."
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for science!
Let me know when science can solve the problem of people hating one another for generations upon generations -- oh, and when they can go MMORPG cheater and dupe Taiwan so that China finally will shut up -- then I'll be impressed.
"Give us more taxpayer-funded research grants and we'll shut up."
The Union of Concerned Scientists certainly has no room to talk about "politicized science." They were the ones who invented politicized science.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Clicking on the Hydrogen entry of the periodic table linked in the original post and reading the fine print at the bottom led me to two websites.
0 040817143928-82727.pdf/ . the current CDC fact sheet, CDC; Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (October 2003) is available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm/.
52. A. Clymer, "U.S. Revises Sex Information, and a Fight Goes On," New York Times, December 27, 2002. A comparison of the two versions of the CDC website about condoms can be seen online. The original website, CDC, Condoms and Their Use in Preventing HIV Infection and Other STDS (September 1999) is available at http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/2
Those two sites now house the same information. Either someone updated it in response to this report or the UCS was misled. I find the former more likely than the latter.
Actually, the complaint is that politics is too separated from science. Politicians are ignoring real science and creating a falsified pseudoscience to replace it.
Science, at it's core, is about recognizing and organizing patterns in factual observations. Government, at it's core, should be about a lowest common denominator - things that the vast majority of people can agree on. This lowest common denominator is factual observations.
There is considerable debate over the existence of a God entity but there is very little debate over the existence of gravity. Gravity can be observed. Governments should take the existence of gravity into account when making their decisions. Governments should not take the existence of a God entity into account when making their decisions (unless/until the existence of a God entity can be established as a matter of factual observation).
If a pattern of factual observations is indicating the global warming is occurring then governments should take this into account. Governments should always take factual observations into account regardless of whether the decision is military decision or a financial decision or any other decision.
The basic message to the government is this: "Don't ignore factual observations when making decisions."
Someday soon scientists world-wide will rise up and use science to take our world back from these political idiots. Maybe they'll invent a virus or other biological agent that targets no-one but greedy, ignorant, and just plain evil politicians. I'd spend my yearly income on as much of the stuff as I could and release it into the air, water, and hors d'oeuvres at those $1000 a plate get-togethers.
They are "special" where their public intelligence duties are concerned.
The same as doctors are "special" in their duties of preserving human life (even though killing off certain patients would save our insurance companies money)
Cops are "special" in that they uphold the rule of the law and not the will of a dictator (the reason Clinton could not throw all the Republican voters in jail in this country).
Shouldn't the voters decide what the truth is?
No. Voting the Earth flat will not make it so. Evolution will not disapear no matter what people believe. It will not stop raining the moment you impeach your Local8 weatherman. Voters can make up their policy given the facts, but they should not make up the facts
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
What are you talking about ? There is oversight on scientists. It's called peer review.
This is especially true when viewed from a global perspective.
That's an interesting point. In the second half of the last century, the US has invested passively in science, and done very well from it. A lot of scientist have moved to the US, attracted by a big research budget. I've thought about it. But as political interference increases, we'll start moving somewhere else instead - the science goes on. But what will be the effect for the United States?
"How many thousands of "scientists" for untold centuries were more than happy to tell their rulers that, yes of course the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it?"
I don't think any scientist ever actually said that, I believe it was church dogma.
Something science found to be incorrect, BTW.
All lorenze proved was that there were to many variables to predict weather.
You want to know what happened to the hurricanes? an increase in wind sheer caused by global climate change.
Thats the great thing about science, any one can look at the data.
Sadly, people who set up science review board will pick fringe scientists to push there agenda.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Exactly. With every other country, this topic would have spawned numerous "OMG fascists!!one" replies. MPU!
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Please don't confuse the practice of science with the use of scientists' results. Science itself isn't contentious--it's pretty straightforward from the layman's standpoint at least (money and dorky-looking people go in; data eventually comes out). How people INTERPRET and USE the science that we do is what's contentious.
science goes wherever the government sees a critical priority, unfortunately nowadays many governments are controlled by money interests, this is what's really interfering in the relationship between science/politics.
Governments have always been controlled by financial interests, going back to the Romans, the Greeks, the Babylonians and earlier. Up until 400 years ago, many rulers relied on a variety of religions to get their way. Between threats of eternal damnation and disapproval by one's peers, most people were forced into performing the ruler's bidding.
For most people, science is quite similar to a religion. Even in a place like the United States, the average person often struggles with basic arithmetic and literacy. Basic scientific knowledge is beyond their grasp. Yet they're lead to believe that if a scientists says something, and presents some data to back it up, that scientist is correct. Of course, that isn't the case. But your average Joe and Jill don't realize that. So politicians have no doubt seen this phenomenon and exploit it, even those politicians who cater mainly to religious fundamentalists. They tell Joe and Jill that some "scientific study" somewhere performed by "reputable scientists" has found a conclusion that supports that politicians ambitions or causes, and Joe and Jill are convinced. And if anyone, such as people with a science background, point out flaws with the politician's studies, all the politician has to do is label them as "unqualified" or "biased", and Joe and Jill are back to being mislead.
It's a formula that has worked for thousands of years, and will likely work for many centuries to come.
That's right. Science is simply an extension and justification of popular opinion. Too many of these elitists seem to think it's about objective study of the nature our universe.
I think the government hasn't gone far enough. All scientists should be denied funding until they provide conclusive proof of the existence and location of the Garden of Eden, our common ancestors in Adam and Eve and that God is white and conservative. Funding any research until that is done should be an offense attracting the death penalty. By public burning at the stake.
While we're at it, how come meteorologists get off so lightly? There's an example of elitism right there. From now on weather forcasts should always be for perfect beach weather in coastal areas, perfect snow cover in the mountains, and just the right amount of rainfall for the farms. All year round.
This is clearly the only way forward
I don't therefore I'm not.
nowadays many governments are controlled by money interests,
Nowadays? NOWADAYS many governments are controlled by money interests? Do you honestly think it was ever any different? Governments only ever pretend to have the interests of "the people" at heart, unless you only count the rich and powerful among "the people."
Academic freedom doesn't mean scientists are completely unregulated, in fact, there are many ethical restrictions placed on them when conducting research (and for good reason, I assume I don't have to point out historical examples here...), however, it means that the direction of the research and the publishing of conclusion ought to be unrestricted so it may come under the review of the scientist's peers.
A lot of the problem with the public and political perception of science today are fields like biology, neuroscience/psychology, medicine, engineering and ecology posing as science.
If it is not physics, chemistry or mathematics, then it is not science.
Take a good close look at biology, engineering or medicine and it is quite clear that these fields are not science. Unfortunately politicians and the general public seem unable to discern the difference.
Science has unjustly earned a bad name due to studies posing as science. It is sad but I doublt the situation will ever be rectified. More and more the public accepts pseudoscience as science.
Just junk food for thought...
Science + Truthiness = Scienciness
Scienciness gives us more consistent and reassuring results than that old-fashioned science. The old stuff is for pessimists and gloom-and-doomers. The optimists in this country will not let such negative attitudes hold back progress and growth.
The problem is very deep. We have politicians that are playing experts when formulating policy. Since the politicians do not really know or understand they often pass legislation detrimental to science. Politicians have only two things in mind: constituents and re-election. Even the scientists claim expertise when they do not really know. What we need are people to be honest and say that they really do not know what is causing global warming or disease, etc. We need open research minds that are objective. The global warming campaign is not very objective. The fact is, no one understands earth's climate completely. We may have some understanding of small aspects of the climate but we have yet to see how these aspects affect the larger picture. This is not limited to the climate. Let's look at the pharmaceutical industry. We have seen a huge rise in medicinal advertising and it looks like the pharmaceutical companies (thought to be safe because of science) are creating drugs to counteract harmful side effects of others. There has been definitive evidence that homeopathic and herbal treatments can be effective without the side effects. However, there is no profit or exclusivity in selling homeopathic medicines. It is a shame when the pharmaceutical industry's answer to erectile dysfunction when taking blood pressure medicines is to introduce a medicine to counteract this. We are becoming increasingly dependent upon this. What if there were another way . . . . Lobbyists are paid big bucks to discredit homeopathy. However, homeopathic research is 100 plus years old. Thus science is not truely objective as long as people are narrow minded or profit moded.
(from Jesus Camp)
MOM: (reading from "Exploring Creationism with Physical Science") One popular thing to do in American Politics is to note that the summers in the United States over the past few years have been very warm. As a result, global warming must be real. What's wrong with this reasoning?
KID: It's only gone up 0.6 degrees.
MOM: Yeah, it's not really a big problem, is it?
KID: No. I don't think that... it's going to hurt us.
MOM: It's a huge political issue, global warming is, and that's why it's really important for you to understand...
KID: Is evolution too?
MOM: Um, not really. On a much...
KID: Creationism?
MOM: Um, it's becoming one now. What if you had to go to school where the teacher said, "Creationism is stupid, and you're stupid if you believe in it?"
KID: I think they should...
MOM: Well, or what if you had to go to a school where the teacher said "Evolution is stupid, and you're stupid if you believe it?"
KID: I wouldn't mind that.
MOM: You wouldn't mind it. If you look at Creationism, it's the only possible answer to all the questions. It's the only possible answer.
KID: That's exactly what dad said!
MOM: Mmm hmmm, it's the only possible answer to all the questions.
KID: Oh, yeah...
MOM: Oh, yeah.
MOM: Did you get to the part on here where it says that science doesn't prove anything? And it's really interesting when you look at it that way.
KID: It is?
MOM: It is.
KID: (reading further) I think, personally, that Galileo made the right choice by giving up science for Christ.
(later)
MOM: We know when things started changing, you know, prayer got taken out of school, and um... the schools started falling apart. And now the rest of us are going, wait a minute, where is my country? Our firm belief is, there are two types of people, those who love Jesus and those who don't.
A science topic, and there's only one mention of the word "evolution" in it at this point, and zero "creationism". Has /. evolved or something?
if you want an example of bad science i could point you to any number of environmental activist websites. full of doom crying and emotive blackmail to try guilt you into taking their side.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Scientists are no less susceptible to bribes and threats, and no less prone to intellectual whoredom than regular people. should start with "modern publically/govt. funded scientists". Modern "science", since just before WWII (if you have to put a threshold somewhere) was too dependant on government grants, which (surprize!) were funnelled to things having military/national pride/ national "happiness" applications (in that order).
:)
Before that time the great minds who called themselves "scientists" were mostly financially independent, if not outright wealthy -- thus, much more independent of public opinion and public funding.
Scientists working for private corporations (old Bell Labs or IBM T.J.. Watson center, anyone?) tend to have a bit less of this whoredom, I hope.
But whining academics do get on my nerves!
Paul B.
Leaving aside whether the UCS practices “politicized science”, or instead merely reacts to others’ politicization of science, they certainly didn't invent politicized science, having been founded in 1969, which certainly is later than birth of the scientific pretense of Marxism-Leninism as practiced by the Soviet state, which itself was hardly, itself, the birth of the politicization of science.
Heck, the cloak of modern empirical science was probably grabbed by political factions for their own ends without regard to scientific merits about a day after the first politician noticed that the whole idea of empiricism had started to catch on and have some influence. Politics are like that: any thing, religion, science, etc., that has utility for selling ideas it is associated with will be used to sell them.
It's also about politicians distorting and lying about the reports and findings of scientists. That is just as abhorrent when the politicians are distorting intelligence reports, or financial ones. So no, it's not a double standard. The politicians should be condemned whenever they distort and lie about stuff.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Science and politics are inseparable. This includes the politics of the scientist.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
What's nice is that the Union of Concerned Scientists is so credible, because they've never taken sides in any political debate.
Always been objective, that's what I like about them scientists.
Somehow, however, UCS received an "Ideological Spectrum Rating" of "1" (Radical Left) from the Capital Research Center. Just unlucky, I guess.
-Styopa
"nowadays many governments are controlled by money interests"
Ah, for the Good Old Days, when governments were controlled by the Fluffy Bunny Lovers' interests...
I love fluffy bunnies.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I still can't believe the lack of knowledge on here (oops..wait this IS Slashdot..home of the ignorant and anonymous) about how the US Government works. The executive branch has little control over what gets researched. The LEGISLATIVE branch writes and funds ALL the Bills that provide the funds for Government research, if they don't like it they won't fund it (aka "it died in committie"). The "fourth branch" aka The Agencies have a great deal of control over what they PROPOSE to Congress to get funding in the budget requests they submit each year that get turned into Bills that are then funded (Authorization and Appropriations process). It is true the Exec Branch gets to name the heads of the Agencies but Congress confirms them and the long-term civil servants at the mid-levels really run the Agencies. Yes, the President also sends a "Budget" to Congress but that really has no bearing on what gets passed and most of the time the numbers are not real. Oh, and don't forget all the "pork" your Senator or Representative slips into the Bills. Having been the recipient of some "pork" when I was at NASA so I can tell you how the pig gets born, raised, slaughtered and sent to market.
Fundamentally science uses its own rules, logic, facts and deduction. Science is the only arm of the government that stands on its own merits rather than having to be forced upon us. For example science tells us the sun is very hot :) Regardless of who interprets it the fact remains the same. OTOH the financial arm of the government will say we have no money but if we were to have a separate group of accountants to view the same figures they would likely come up with a different conclusion. The latter is echoed throughout all governments. The only reason the government is so interested in science to begin with is that each scientific fact works for everyone in the same way and cannot be skewed, so it arises at the attitude "we are better to discover the fact then risk someone else find it first".
Back to the topic. Scientists are trusted to arrive at scientific conclusions, how can we trust the combustion engine but if they say the world is getting hotter in a bad way we should not? We should definitely challenge them by asking questions and seeking answers, but to discredit them for no reason is a very scary path to go down if you ask me.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
When you accept the fact of BIG GOVERNMENT, you have to accept big government, statist interference!
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock
I see that my comments in this thread, which were formerly modded +3 insightful, are suddenly getting modded into oblivion as "Troll".
What better way to suppress views with which you're uncomfortable... why bother engaging the person's ideas when you can just silence him, eh?
No "politicization" there... No siree! [Kaff hack kaff]....
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
up an Oregon logging road.
If you can't get your research out, with all the internet blogs, money being spent on global warming campaigns, proposed tax hikes, mailing lists, protests, PBS specials, you've got bigger problems than a republican congress.
Just like there is (or at least, there is supposed to be) a strict seperation between church and state, there should be the same strict seperation between science and state. OF COURSE scientists who work for the government are going to be pressured to come up with results that reinforce the policies of the ruling party - that is how politics work! Remove the politics from science, by making sure institutionally they are in no way connected.
The only change that has been happening recently is that science is now almost completly absorbed by the government, which means science is almost completly at the whims of the ruling party, where as 50-60 years ago there was plenty of independent scientists.
There is considerable debate over the existence of a God
Actually, there is no debate among the faithful (whichever faith) about there being a God.
Faith has nothing to do with science. Science has nothing to do with faith.
Faith is the belief in something that cannot be shown to be true by science. Science is the belief that nothing is true that cannot be proven to be true.
If you use science to "prove" tenants of your faith, then it is no longer a faith, but a fact. And where is the nobility in believing in a fact?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
No. It certainly doesn't seem to me to be the case that government should be about the LCD unless you believe that democracy, in its current form, is how all government should be.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
That is like a prostitute proclaiming virginity. That organization prostitutes the scientific reputations of its members for political goals most shamelessly.
Clearly you've never worked at any sort of research institution doing science that was supported by federal grants. If you lack firsthand experience or concrete evidence of this you can cite, I would kindly ask you to shut up before you sound like a bigger idiot.
Will politicians stop interfering with science when scientists stop interfering with politics?
Take for example, the pressure from scientists to implement the Kyoto protocol. A decision on whether or not to implement the Kyoto protocol is surely outside the domain of science, as it is a decision that must weight scientific data on the likely outcomes of global warming against non-scientific data on the economic effects of the Kyoto protocol. Do scientists have the advisors to balance the former against the latter? I'd argue not, and that therefore their advocacy for the Kyoto protocol is distorted. We would be better off if scientists presented neutral data.
I find it unreasonable that scientists bash the Bush and Howard administrations for not signing the Kyoto protocol when scientists only have half of the available data.
It's all very well to decry politicians interfering in science, but surely scientists should be held to the same standard.
Here're some of the corporations that own... I mean, that "contribute" to the Union of Concerned Scientists:
"Beldon Fund, the Compton Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the Scherman Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Energy Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, and Pew Charitable Trusts."
For more information on the "unbiased" nature of what these guys do, see its page on Discover The Network.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
If you use science to "prove" tenants of your faith, then it is no longer a faith, but a fact. And where is the nobility in believing in a fact? Of course, you are assuming that having faith that god exists is somehow noble.
Science is about patterns in what people observe. One of the most fundamental patterns is that people observe each other to observe the same things. For example, under certain circumstances, I observe the sky to be blue and I also observe other people to observe the sky to be blue.
Science can not, however, establish whether the patterns in what people observe are true in an absolute sense. I don't know if what I observe is "real" or if I am trapped in an artificial reality. I don't even know if I'm really human. I might just be an AI computer program in an artificial reality that provides me with the observations I would have if I were human. Even the laws of physics that I observe could be merely a product of the artificial reality I am immersed in.
By definition, faith is beliefs that are either not supported by factual observations or even beliefs that are inconsistent with factual observations. In general, religious beliefs are not inconsistent with single well established factual observations but they do tend to be inconsistent with overall patterns in factual observations.
Which makes Carter a Nukey-er Engineer.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
This, my friends is an ad hominem attack. It's a typical political ploy to attack the integrity of scientists without disputing the facts. Can you honestly say science hasn't been perverted? Can you honestly say that politician aren't currently using science to advance heir own political agendas? I mean c'mon! Both parties in the US do it! Science has been perverted since time immemorium, but as of late it's getting incredibly bad.
The scientists vested interest is looking objective, because the scientific method isn't about politics, it's about discovering scientific fact. If all you are going to do is attack an organization for being too liberal, then you are part of the problem. Dispute the science, not someone's political leanings.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
To all the people who say "this kind of thing always goes on", there is a reason that DOZENS of Nobel laureates are speaking out now -- it's worse now than it ever has been.
The only people who complain about 'elitism' belong to the dipshit rabble.
Listen p*ssy. I'm sure your the same homo that posted earlier about alf's boner and you just want to remain anonymous fo
Belief in an idea larger than yourself and that you can't ever really be sure is true is Noble.
Belief in the fact that water will boil at 212 degrees at sea level requires little effort.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Look at the board: http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/board.html
There you see the name of Richard Garwin, who was central to the technical effort of getting from the Teller-Ulam theory of the hydrogen bomb to the first working device, the Ivy Mike test. This was in the early fifties. After that he worked on satellite-based photography of the Soviets. To this day he serves on the Defense Science Board, which is basically a club of extremely smart techies that the pentagon asks for advice.
He sure sounds like an anti-American commie to me!
Jimm-ny F'ing Christmas the story is all about that blowhard Dr Hansen is mouthing off again. You really need to get the whole story behind his "issues" he has been crying about for years. It's a bunch of BS on his part. He did crappy unsupported research, it wouldn't pass internal peer review. He got a bunch of his "Global Warning" buddies to sign the petition, most of them are nobodies, and the other are well known activists or GW freaks. This isn't anything new.
That was an informative post, and I appreciated reading it, except for the potshot at me. You will note that I said the exec. branch had "some control" over the direction of funding. Reading your post, most (but not all) of which I did know, I stand by this characterization. Especially during this Congress, which did not impress me with its independence from the exec. branch. And clearly this Administration has exerted fairly strong control over the agencies, through appointments and direct pressure. See: James Hansen, George Deutsch, and so forth.
And besides, my main point was that the real problem is the perversion of scientific research that we are seeing.
To review: I argue that the politics of funding science is not great but is basically tolerable (with notable exceptions), while the distortion and/or suppression of inconvenient scientific results is not tolerable.
I apologize if my characterization of the funding process of the US government was not of sufficient detail for your liking.
Finally- thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for the concept of "separation of powers."
Cheers.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
In addition, PI should be equal to 3.0000000...
I mean, think of the children, can't have'em being confused by mathematics, could fuck up their whole life...
snarkth
One clarification to the above: the agencies, not the congress, usually decide who gets the grant money.
I refer you to this review of one of the more dishonest scientific episodes in recent memory, in which Patrick Michaels quite deliberately distorted Hansen's 1998 climate predictions (which, ten years later, were actually quite good). If I was Hansen I'd be pissed, too.
Care to provide any links that demonstrate with any shred of integrity why Dr. Hansen's research is crappy? And please don't waste my time with Junk Science or any other previously debunked sites.
Cheers.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
I am American and all I can say, "I am damn embarrassed with government". The head moron probably probably didn't get better than a D in any of his science classes. God knows what the other assholes between him and government scientist got! I can't hold my head up in another country! With Iran and NK going nuclear, Osama taking a siesta in the Himalayas while doing video blogs, and Iraq giving new defintion to hate thy neighbor, why does this Administration insist on disputing people with Ph.D's. Do they understand that they are usually not right about a lot of things? It is best to shut up and listen to the experts! Blair is stepping down soon in UK, can we borrow him for the next 2 years?
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
It cuts both ways. Scientists ought not put up a false, unified front on policy issues. Once you do that, expect to have your opinion pressured.
A true scientist chases truth but analying, observing, experimenting. A scientist should be interested only in the facts. Rarely does a group of scientists receive massive grants that personally benefit their wallets. Few people become scientists because of the money, and those that do will generally make that money by serving private corporations, not the government. A politician, on the other hand, is in the business of people. A politician chases public opinion (always a swinging metric). Politicians set policy on behalf of those they represent. They are the "deciders" (a term that will surely be in the next OED). If the wind blows south, so goes policy, because politicians make most of their money via favors and special interests. There is an awful lot of money that can be made by making life easier for this group of people or that group of people.
On the question of truth, I think I would be more inclined to trust the consensus of science. Even when wrong, it is often nearer to, and continually pursuing, the truth. Politicians, on the other hand, often chase the flavor of the month. If the truth is inconvenient, then the truth might be cast aside.
Do You Experiment?
No Nobel Laureate is a "nobody" (and really, who TF are you to say so?). But you want to ignore 52 of them together? You gotta be trolling me.
But that aside, this is NOT only about global climate change issues. See the whole panoply of issues in which the Union of Concerned Scientists is alleging political interference in the scientific and/or regulatory process.
The Bush administration has made a concerted effort like none before it to muzzle science it doesn't like.
Goddammit, I said it much better the first time (Subject: Science vs Study) but basically it went like this:
Biologists, doctors and engineers erroneously consider themselves scientists, and people believe them.
If it is not physics, chemistry or mathematics published in a respected peer reviewed journal (NOT Nature) then it is not science, plain and simple.
Pseudo science has given pure science a bad name. Politicians and the general public do not have the mental wherewithal to realise this unfortunately.
That is the root of this issue, fields of study being misrepresented as science. Its just too bad no one can see that.
(I'd love to know what happened to my old post - did I miss the ensuing flamewar and deletion?)
So we should respect these guys - http://www.mufon.com/ - instead of calling them fruitcakes?
Or perhaps you mean "noble" in the chemical sense and are suggesting they're congenitally unable to form stable relationships? If that's the case, there's going to be a lot of bowing and scraping amongst the Slashdot community in the days ahead...
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Further, biology, meteorology, psychology, *ology... are not sciences, they are studies. There is a difference.
Thankfully, my message about posting "Nu Scientist" (intentionally misspelled) articles here and presenting them as science seems to have gotten through.
Not always, I have seen directed grants in legislation. I will guarantee you that if the Congressman from State X sees to it that money for research in his state is in the bill it damn well better go to his state, or else. Robert Byrd is very very good at doing this. For the size of the state, its population and it's academic reputation West Va gets far and away more than it should in grants.
If you are going to argue a point make it precise and correct in all matters. Crap in one area really makes the reader suspect of your arguments in another even if they may be 100% correct.
Prove the supression of scientific results by the Government...last I saw the scientists in the USA were free to publish whatever they found assuming it passes peer review of the Journals. Try publishing any results that may be the slighest bit controversial in China for example. If it can't stand up to peer review then the Gov't should NOT accept it regardless of it Eistein came back from the grave and did the work. That's not supressing good science that is preventing bad science from spreading.
Anyone else notice the link is pointing to the Democratic Leadership Council?
Wouldn't an alternate news source be more appropriate? That's like linking to an article in the Republican Quarterly (Washington Times?) claiming that Hillary Clinton refused to kiss some child because his parents were Republican. It's not exactly unbiased.
This entire discussion feels a little like the 5 minutes hate. Maybe, just maybe, the Union of Concerned Scientists are concerned about more than science. Is it possible that they have a political agenda as well? Could it be there are other scientists out there who disagree with them on scientific issues? Maybe the EPA is cancelling these programs out of scientific validity or duplication of resources. I'm only saying these things because every damn comment in this article's thread has been a party line establishmentarian pile of arrogance. Just maybe we could do without funding these idiots.
Case in point. Look at the Ab entry. I'm DEFINITELY no fan of abstinence education but I find quotes like this to be questionable "with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females." (Emphasis is mine.) Why quote the decline of teen birth rates. Why not teen birth rates per-capita? That's right out of How to Lie With Statistics.
The whole article stinks of political bias even as they claim to be unbiased. We all hate President Bush but gimme a break - try some critical thinking.
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
I post a rather diplomatic response and you come back all snotty and condescending.
./, and having a proposal and some other work due the same day, sometimes I devote less time and energy.
./ debate club prize on that point.
When writing my MS thesis, I was precise and correct and detailed. When posting on
Besides, in my post I was precise and correct; I stand by my characterization of the exec. branch having "some control" over funding, for reasons already mentioned. But I concede I didn't even need to single out the exec. branch; you win the
I mentioned distortion and suppression by "the government."
Distortion: Whoo boy. I'll start with this masterpiece about mercury (pdf) by Pombo et al. Then you have Mr. Deutsch- there's distortion and suppression all wrapped up in one nice package. And incompetence. I'll leave you with this resignation letter.
I like how you narrowly interpreted my comments to refer to strictly to publishing. Narrow interpretation is your favorite tool, isn't it. But I am more broadly concerned with the suppression/distortion of science in the government's decision making process. Refer to the situation regarding the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change described in the last link. See also this book.
I concur that we have it better than in China. There should be a corollary to Godwin's law- if you have to compare your country to China to argue that your government isn't so bad, you lose.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
...or arrogant. Since when is noble at the end of a sentence capitalised? Don't look at this as some kind with a grammar nazi view but with the other view!
"You overestimate the integrity of scientists and the degree of peer-review."
/highly rated conferences and journals. Maybe avoiding tackling problems that are high risk so their department doesn't look bad in the assessment year.
Well said. Science is always political as we're all human. Even those computer scientists who are so pure (notification of bias: I work alongside computer scientists).
Computer scientists are susceptible to the same pressures as every other field - while their work may be more transparent and accountable, their choice of topics may be biased by the social or political environment. Lots of money/kudos/promotions in field X rather than field Y? well guess which fields they focus on?! Govt leaders offer huge chunk of money to solve problem A and cut funding for problem B - guess which is of interest to university computer scientists?
They are trying to build up their little fiefdoms just like every other sphere of working life, trying to get their papers into the fashionable
Maybe the results in computer science are more easy to peer review and identify as being well derived or falsified but I'd say the whole surrounding territory is just as messed up -and human - as every other field.
Mostly it's because they're too stupid to work out how to log in.
How come the parent is moderated Flamebait when he is only pointing out what a load of crap and obvious Flamebait the Grandparent is spewing and yet the Grandparent is moderated Informative or something for an obvious load of flamebaited crap ?
Who says Bush and co. are interested in "good" public policy? Where's the profit in that?
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
The science of "international peace and security"? I smell bullshit.
A lot of it sounds like scientists whining about funding. For example I actually looked at the documents on the links for prarie dogs. The original finding was that "... sylvatic plague may threaten Gunnisons prarie dogs ... such that listing may be warranted"
Well if the scientists say that the listing "may" be warranted, why are the whining when policy makers decide that it also means that they "may not" be warranted? If they thought that the prarie dog should have been listed the original document should have specified "the prarie dogs qualify for listing" or similar conclusive language, not the wishy-washy stuff they actually put in the report.
Sheesh - a lot of whiners out there.
It seems you fail to comprehend that governments are the ultimate in moneyed power interests.
With all the media hype, man created global warming is the ultimate coup in power being pursued by socialists around the world.
It should be as obvious as what's in the tale of The Emperors New Clothes that something is way off with the whole idea since at best man is a tertiary participant in a complex system whose primary causes are poorly understood, some still unknown and whose secondary factors are probably only partially known, much less understood.
One merely has to read ayn rand's The Fountainhead to gain an understanding of how a group can take over and subvert an existing organization, whether it's a scientific organization or a modern art group.
Also, true science is seldom intertwined in politics. That which is, ceases to be science because it becomes so corrupted. There is, in some cases, the desire for certain outcomes which can lead to total distortions and even falsificaitons of raw data as irregularities in interpretation. In other cases, it's more benign, where data is left intact but where occam's razor is left to rust as new and more contorted ideas are presented as radical new ideas - in order to get more funding, or fame and fortune as the researcher has a vested interest in the outcome.
Earlier this year, The Scientist, Magazine of the Life Sciences conducted a poll asking its mostly-scientist/science field readers what they thought of the Bush and Clinton administrations' science policies. Sorted by voting choices in 2004, and includes whether or not they believe themselves to be influenced by ideology in their science.
Poll: How bad is Bush for science?
Nice catch. I didn't note the DLC link, just "ppionline" in the URL, which didn't mean anything to me.
Just junk food for thought...
I think you mean sociology, or (gasp) political "science." Psychology is as rigorous a science as I have seen, and I'm an engineer. I'm talking about true research-oriented, scientific-method-following psychology, not the crap that Freud and friends studied a century ago. That was philosophy, or just plain garbage. Today's psychologists run controlled experiments; they postulate a hypothesis, run a controlled experiment, gather and analyze data, draw conclusions, publish results, repeat experiments, and review their peers. There's not a definition of science around that would exclude psychology in that form. Yet so many colleges still only have BA programs for it, rather than BS. That's a crock. They end up knowing more about statistics and the scientific method than their engineer counterparts.
Science does not and should not dictate policy. Science does inform policy. When JFK asked NASA if he could justify the Apollo program on scientific grounds. His advisors told him that for the money, there were ways to get more and better science done. He went ahead with Apollo, but he justified it as being necessary for our pride, to beat the Russians, etc., not as being primarily about the science.
It's fine for the government to ignore the recommendations of scientists. But they absolutely should not pretend that they're doing otherwise by censoring, editing and lying about what said scientists have said. It does nothing in the long run but debase our research institutions in particular and science in general.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Regulation, no. Of course they should be regulated. That's why we have IRBs and such. You'll find that no one was contesting the regulations under which researchers do their research. What they are contesting is snot-nosed political appointees sticking their fingers into the process and pretending to speak with the authority of actual scientists. It's a half-step from actual Lysenkoism.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"Shouldn't the voters decide what the truth is?"
Excuse me sir, but you seem to have mistaken "the public" for "the voters".
Let me clear it up for you.
The public refers to the set of people who form a society.
The voters refers to those members of the public not apathetic with regard to the government.
I presume you belong to the former group and not the later.
If you're seriously using "but China is worse!" as a defense, perhaps you might want to think about what that says about you, and about the position you're taking.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
ultimately the voters are the ones that decide. what you and me think is beside the point if neither of us can vote.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Would you be comfortable with them making up facts full of their own brand of truthiness, then passing them off as science backed by empirical evidence? 'Cause that's what we're talking about here. If you'd like to argue about ethical restraints on the actions of scientists, you'll be wanting a different thread.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
These accusations are thrown because they are frequently accurate as well as relevant. Calling someone a socialist who wants to destroy Western civilization without evidence of a similar conspiracy which has parroted identical propaganda using similar techniques to hide its true origins and intentions isn't the same thing.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
If you're going to keep reposting this crap, can you at least spell "flamebait" and "entertaining" properly?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Science is the belief that nothing is true that cannot be proven to be true.
a) science is not a belief, it is a process. Some may have a belief that science provides truth but, ironically, this is unscientific.
b) science makes no claims about things that can't be tested. The line "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is perfectly consistent with a scientific approach.
From a scientific perspective nothing is ever really proved to be true - we merely have more or less evidence for it.
A new discovery could appear tomorrow which throws doubt on any aspect of scientific "truth". In fact, if it is not possible for a theory to be contradicted then it fails one of the keys tests of whether or not it is scientific. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability for details.
I would suggest you look at the Gloal Warming issue. There, advocates have adopted all the trappings of religion.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the contradiction. The GP appears to be talking about three different people.
As anonymous coward guessed, there are 3 people. There are also two errors in my post but correcting them would make names blindingly obvious. (The errors are due to me retelling tales a couple years after hearing them of an agency of which I have no firsthand knowledge.)
Thank you for your diligence in fact checking. But I am reluctant to say more.
I wonder if one of the errors was to selectively swap CDC and NIH (which oversees the CDC's budget) in particular this director seems to match your description. http://www.nih.gov/about/almanac/historical/direct ors.htm#varmus
You totally rocked the house with that one. You've got a new fan. :D
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!