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
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.
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
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."
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
They should have named this on define hypocrisy
I always love it when someone is down they complain about the very thing they were doing when they were on top.
Global Warming is a perfect example
Several studies that I have seen quoted (on both sides) have faked their numbers when their models did not show what they wanted. Some have later been busted on it.
Yet people that are not climatologists keep quoting the worthless studies as if they meant something. Now I don't care what side you come down on unless you are six years old you know both side have faked their studies.
Another perfect example is when one side starts complaining about non-partisan work by congress. You know they think they are going to loose whatever the issue is.
And as several people have pointed out they take the money fast enough.
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.
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.
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.
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.
thier rss feed was only set to poll every 4 years.
I'm just curious which "sides" you're talking about. It sounds like you're saying there's some clear line where scientists disagree. My understanding is that disagreement exists on subtler points, but not on whether human activity contributes to global warming. (Unless there's some disagreement about the principle of cause-and-effect I'm unaware of...?)
In any case, I don't think any research has itself stated that humanity must or mustn't curtail their emissions of hydrocarbons, only that there are predictable consequences of action versus inaction.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you know all about which studies are worthless, and who's quoting them, it would help if you provided some examples.
And not to be too much of a grammar nazi, but the word is lose not loose. And I think you meant to say partisan and not non-partisan. No one complains about "non-partisan work by Congress."
-- thinkyhead software and media
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.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
"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.
And I suppose you are going to tell me that the Scaife-funded "Capital Research Center" is a neutral, objective, unbiased commenter on political ideology.
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.
I'm just curious which "sides" you're talking about. It sounds like you're saying there's some clear line where scientists disagree. My understanding is that disagreement exists on subtler points, but not on whether human activity contributes to global warming. (Unless there's some disagreement about the principle of cause-and-effect I'm unaware of...?)
You state that everyone agrees that human activity contributes to global warming. That's actually exactly where the disagreements are. The point where disagreement doesn't exist for is that global warming is happening.
The influence of man on global warming is a very contentious point, and rightfully so, because there are a lot of things that impact global warming. As stated before both sides have messed with their data to prove a specific point.
With respect to your cause and effect statement, I have to say that correlation does not equal causation. There are many, many factors that affect global warming, and we still have a lot to learn about it.
What bothers me with respect to politics and global warming, is that all the solutions seem to be big government and socialism. Basically all the solutions espouse only one political philosophy.
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.
You idiot! They'll use sharks with frikkin lasers on their heads.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
No, but then again they at least have the intellectual integrity to say that they are CONSERVATIVE .... unlike a certain disingenuous Union which doesn't identify itself as a Left Wing activist organisation.
-Styopa
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.
I don't doubt that there's politics in science; But TFA is itself a political doument, trying to pose as a consensus of scientists.
No, but then again they at least have the intellectual integrity to say that they are CONSERVATIVE .... unlike a certain disingenuous Union which doesn't identify itself as a Left Wing activist organisation.
Repeat after me:
Not everone who disagree with right wing nutjobs is a left-winger.
The argument you're making is simply stupid. It boils down to:
"A group if of the political affiliation that another group pins on it, regardless of things like actual evidence or the stated aims of the group."
Life is too short to proofread.
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.
> I was just laughing at how TFA is very clearly an example of itself.
Amen. The UCS's complaints are not that the government is interfering with research done in peer-reviewed journals. Rather it's that government agencies are not saying and doing what they want them to.
The UCS is clearly a political group with many proposed policy changes: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/
When a group starts proposing policy changes, it leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of policy-making, that is politics.
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
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.
Yay, since you try to turn this into a political issue, now you set the scene for the political indoctrinated biases to work their way. The republicans now can just go home and ignore the whole report, because, obviously, they are against republicans so they must be democrats.
The way I see things is that the organization presented their findings now, because they noticed a huge drop of respect for science since the previous administrations. That's only a rep. vs dem. issue if you let it be one.
This description of yours fits into the "it was written by DEMS, don't listen!!!!111" conclusion you seem to be advocating.
Good excuses for not listening to a bunch of Nobel laureates. Especially since because only about 7% of them believe in any personal god at all, so they must be stupid atheist too, right? What do they know?!
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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."
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
No. See, the U.S. Government, the American people and science don't go very well together because the American people value actors and actresses above all others. The American people are more interested in appearance than substance and the U.S. Government reflects that.
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 ?
The science of "international peace and security"? I smell bullshit.
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?
No, what I'm pointing out is that the UCS tries to paint itself as simply that, a "union" of "concerned" scientists, when in fact they've had a Liberal Agenda since their very founding (in opposition to Ronald Reagan, and his Star Wars SDI proposals).
For them now, nearly 30 years later, to still be claiming any sort of objectivity is laughable. That's like saying WAMM (a group founded around the same time, with much of the same agenda) is objective - ludicrous from the start.
-Styopa
Plenty of non-liberal scientists were opposed to SDI because it was simply unworkable (Edward Teller, of course, being a notable exception.)
UCS doesn't claim to be neutral and objective, they are overtly an advocacy group concerned about a particular range of issues that they identify up front.
OTOH, no one is offering UCS hostile characterization of the political leanings of another group as if they were fact.
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...
Ah, Discover the Networks, run by David Horowitz, neocon writer of "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America" (which has been severely criticised for unsubstantiated claims), which links to FrontPage Mag, another neocon website, which is funded to the tune of 15 million by several right wing foundations (http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants. php?recipientID=63) etc etc. And to contribute information, you just click a little web form at the home page, and write your spiel. Wikipedia has better editorial guidelines than this. And of course, DTN itself has multiple criticisms of inaccuracy.
How terribly unbiased.
Correlation may not equal causation, but it is still something. Correlations are sources of information by which why hypothesis may be discriminated from another, and this synthesis of statistical correspondances is the method by which all science is done. Where are those declaring that correlation does not equal causation to the germ theory of medicine, to the efficient markets principle, to the prevailing philosophies and ideologies of the world. What climatologists have done is develop a model based on well agreed on science and confirmed this model according to all measurements they have done. There is nothing more that they could do.
There are many, many factors that affect global warming, and we still have a lot to learn about it.
But how much information is enough? No skeptic has ever given a hint as to the amount of evidence there is that we need to amass before we do anything. Solar radiance, volcanic action, interaction between gases, microclimate vs overall climate are all understood and discussed in the scientific literature. At what point do we stop waving our hands at unspecific unknowns, and quit moving the goalposts? Isn't it true that those asking for such things are not waiting for the truth, but are just waiting for someone to give a more convenient answer?
And why do people think acting against global warming is socialist?
That's because there's been a concerted project by certain companies to portray themselves as though they were the entirity of the free market. While companies in Europe are petitioning for stronger environmental measures to create incentives for technological development, these companies continue to adopt get rich quick short term strategies and use propaganda to get the government to subsidise them.
The proposed policies are no more 'big government' than such things as government grants for national security and Iraq reconstruction, and no more socialist than any legislation. It is *not* going to destroy capitalism, and in terms of cost, it is likely to be a fraction of the aforementioned cases.
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.
I think the intention was to present it in an eye-catching (graphical) format that tried to borrow some credibility (maybe even authority) from a familliar tool which has symbolic value. I agree that it was mocking; I think we disagree about who the elite that need mocking are. Yay, since you try to turn this into a political issue, now you set the scene for the political indoctrinated biases to work their way. The republicans now can just go home and ignore the whole report, because, obviously, they are against republicans so they must be democrats.
The way I see things is that the organization presented their findings now, because they noticed a huge drop of respect for science since the previous administrations. That's only a rep. vs dem. issue if you let it be one.
I think its clear that this site gives that impression. I'm suggesting that it is designed to do so -- a political organization wants to stop Bush from pushing his agenda, finds some scientists to give some stories about government-related badness. You seem to be suggesting that either this is not a political group, or that its politics don't matter in its findings.
How can we know which of us is right?
This description of yours fits into the "it was written by DEMS, don't listen!!!!111" conclusion you seem to be advocating.Good excuses for not listening to a bunch of Nobel laureates. Especially since because only about 7% of them believe in any personal god at all, so they must be stupid atheist too, right? What do they know?!
If Nobel laureates never had their names on politically-driven documents, then there would be no excuse to ignore them. The opposite of ignoring the article might be to figure out whats wrong with it, so someone can do better; or it might be to do something about the problem that it brings up.
"What to do about it" is very importaint, and I don't think TFA ever got to it, other than 'Blame Bush' and 'Sign here, if you're a scientist.' And this is exactly my problem with weasel-worded accusations like this. There's no way to counter them if any of them are false or exaggerated. The article is no help in fixing the problem if it is real. Presumeably we'd like for Bush (or someone) to read something like this and say, "Science is being interfered with!? Not on my watch! I will fix this, at once!" But this article is no help in finding the interference (ie, knowing who to fire), or, because of its bias, even in judging how widespread it is.
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
Correction: "David Horowitz, one of the most important and widely know new-left activists of the 1960s, turned conservative in the 1980s." Here, I fixed it for you. Also, he replied with documentation to each and every claim of inaccuracy in "The Professors", and most of his replies weren't replied to by his critics. Same for DTN, with the same no-replies-back by the critics.
Anyway, nothing prevents you from going into http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/financials.html and seek the owners^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontributors names by yourself.
By the way: funny that someone modded me "flamebait". I never buried someone with mod points just because I disagreed with him, much less when the guy offered links to actual data. Slashdot left-wing readers seem to be very similar to the left-wingers I know from University. A pretty standard behavior indeed.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
No, what I'm pointing out is that the UCS tries to paint itself as simply that, a "union" of concerned" scientists, when in fact they've had a Liberal Agenda
Perhaps a good way of doing this would be to actually provide credible evidence.
Right now you're just making half-assed assertions based on hearsay from parties that are obviously baised.
Life is too short to proofread.
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
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.
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.
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!