Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trump Administration Prohibits CDC Policy Analysts From Using the Words 'Science-Based' (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the our-words-matter dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader hey! writes: On Friday the Washington Post reported that the Trump Administration has forbidden the Centers for Disease Control from using seven terms in certain documents: "science-based", "evidence-based", "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," and "fetus".

It's important to note that the precise scope and intent of the ban is unknown at present. Scientific and medical personnel as of now have not been affected, only policy analysts preparing budgetary proposals and supporting data that is being sent to Congress. So it is unclear the degree to which the language mandates represent a change in agency priorities vs. a change in how it presents itself to Congress. However banning the scientifically precise term "fetus" will certainly complicate budgeting for things like Zika research and monitoring.
According to the Post's article, "Instead of 'science-based' or 'evidence-based,' the suggested phrase is 'CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes."

The New York Times confirmed the story with several officials, although "a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans."

31 of 458 comments (clear)

  1. They must go nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As someone who had to work with crassly incompetent bosses, too, I can feel for them. This must really be really painful. The best thing they can do is leaking every bullshit those Trumpist idiots are demanding and destroying to the press.

    1. Re: They must go nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering the vast amount of non-scienced based evidence like anti-gmo, antivaxxers, chemtrails-believers, naturepaths, homeopaths etc that exists this is hardly buzz word bingo but precise and meaningful definitions.

    2. Re:They must go nuts by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How would the word "fetus" be part of "buzz word bingo"? It has a clear medical definition, and compelling legal definitions.

    3. Re: They must go nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Alot of people, like myself, are anti-GMO because of the business practices and behaviors of this industry. I happen to think the science is quite sound. That's called ethics and is encouraged within science.

    4. Re:They must go nuts by LowestKey · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Evidence-based" is absolutely used in medical environments. Perhaps you shouldn't speak about things about which you are ill-informed.

    5. Re:They must go nuts by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      And those who put "choice" above the life of the unborn baby

      Fetus, not baby. Historically, the idea of confusing the two is a very, very recent development.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:They must go nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Politics.

      In Republican/Conservative land, the result of conception it a baby. It's a baby from day zero, and calling it anything else is just an attempt to deny reality and dehumanise the baby so you can kill it. Only Nazis say fetus.

      Mike Pence, is that you?

      I guess you flunked out of high school biology class. Zygote, embryo, and fetus are legitimate scientific terms. That you want to humanize a few cells (zygote) or an embryo that could not possibly survive independently outside a womb, speaks volumes about your own particular agenda. And once the "baby" becomes a fetus, it's pretty damn rare that it's "killed" or aborted. Only in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy will a doctor consider aborting a fetus.

    7. Re:They must go nuts by meglon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ....and those who put freedom and privacy above women being forces to be nothing more than breeding chattel...

      Fixed that for you. And yes, conservatives don't give a fuck about anything other than fetuses. You fucking self-centered pieces of shit can't even renew a childrens health insurance to save childrens lives. You're not pro-life... you're pro-reducing women to second class citizens, just like your patriarchal bastard parents were.

      Until a woman gives birth, that fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Because you don't have a fucking clue about reality doesn't make it any different.

      But let be real here.... conservative policy INCREASES abortions. Access to contraceptives, and actual sex education is what drives down unwanted pregnancy, and stupid fucking conservative douche bags like you do everything possible to make those things harder for people to get.

      Fetus is a scientific term... but as we see from this dipshit news, conservatives are too fucking stupid to understand anything past their anti-intellectual fantasy land.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    8. Re:They must go nuts by jeremyp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think "fetus", "science based" and "evidence based" are buzzwords?

      You are part of the problem.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    9. Re: They must go nuts by unrtst · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I love this little thread! It seems to embody the discourse for many of this years issues.
      * Someone takes a side on something
      * Other people adamantly disagree
      * Others join first side, still no reasons presented
      * Second side states some nearly-fact, and references it as why they are correct
      * First side barely rephrases the same fact, and uses it to claim they are correct
      * A back and forth ensues, each saying, "no, it's because $same_fact"
      * Side note: one of the parties doesn't actually believe the fact, so they can't even fall back to agreeing on that

      Regarding that last point, it means the two sides here probably won't agree that Monsanto is awful and needs broken in a variety of ways, even though "big evil gmo company" is the shared fact.... though someone from both sides WILL agree to that, and it just leaves everyone frustrated, wondering how nearly everyone involved can be saying essentially the same thing and arriving an completely opposing opinions.

      FWIW, I blame language, or the poor or inaccurate use of it.

    10. Re: They must go nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > Jim Crow was a Democrat

      You're semantically-correct, but effectively wrong. Today's "Republican" and "Democratic" parties BOTH differ in important, fundamental ways from the parties bearing their names 50+ years ago. We've had at LEAST 2 or 3 MAJOR partisan re-alignments over the past 150 years where the names remained the same, but the members (and their personalities) got shuffled and switched around.

      Abraham Lincoln was most assuredly NOT a "limited-government states-rights evangelical conservative", any more than Thomas Jefferson was a welfare-state environmentalist who advocated the poor, powerless, black, or otherwise-disenfranchised.

      Both parties are volatile, fragile coalitions. In countries with proportional-representation parliamentary democracy, the coalitions are formed by elected officials after each election. In countries with first past the post elections (regardless of whether you call the resulting body a "congress" or "parliament"), you inevitably end up with 2 strong parties that shuffle back & forth, with a third group that occasionally coalesces into a stable third party, and the coalitions are effectively formed BEFORE the election.

      This is why Republicans in Congress keep ending up hamstrung by their most extreme right-wing members, instead of kicking them to the curb and forming working coalitions with the least-liberal Democrats. The leaders of BOTH parties know that the result would eventually be another reshuffling that would probably result in a hardcore right-wing evangelical party big enough to keep Rs and Ds from getting clear majorities, while the Rs and Ds themselves were BOTH dragged towards a more ambiguous center neither party WANTS to be at, with neither Rs nor Ds likely to achieve solid, stable majorities for a long time afterwards. So conservative-leaning Democrats are pressured into NOT forming coalitions with Republicans, and Republicans aren't allowed to even THINK about forming a temporary coalition with any Democrats, even if such a coalition could steamroll over the extremists in both parties... both parties will automatically sacrifice short-term victories for the sake of long-term stability.

    11. Re:They must go nuts by nightfire-unique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      +1.

      Honestly, whether or not abortiion is "right" or "wrong" is utterly irrelevant.

      We should be using terms like "forced birthers" because that describes what so-called "anti-abortionists" are supporting. Not saving a fetus, but forcing a woman to give birth without her consent.

      Perhaps in 100 years, we will rightly refer to forced-birthers with a similar disdain that we currently reserve for rape supporters.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    12. Re: They must go nuts by meglon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fact: most of the judges on the supreme court who voted for roe vs wade were conservative.

      Fact: the supreme court is supposed to be non-political positions. Additionally, as you can see by the stance of the members currently, ALL of the conservatives are against the Roe v Wade decision.

      Fact: More Republicans voted in favor of the 19th amendment than democrats did.

      You're conflating "republican" with "conservative" here. In the 1920's, democrats were the more conservative party.

      Fact: Jim Crow was a Democrat.

      Again, trying to suggest that democrats of the time were progressives; democrats of this time were radically conservative. Even brain dead idiots know that.

      And to those [citation needed] tools, highlight the facts, right click on it, and select "search in google".

      Fact: the only tool i see here is you. It takes an idiot to think that the republican party of the early 1900's even remotely resembles the modern day republican party. Modern republicans are the anti-thesis to Lincoln and his progressive republican party.

      Bet you didn't know those inconvenient facts did you?

      Yeh... i've seen your form of stupidity before. You're like the morons who think the NAZI's were socialists just because that word was part of their name. .. or One Million Moms who's membership is, what... less than 200k (and that's being generous). You mooks believe everything your masters tell you.... it must hurt to go through life as stupid as you are.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  2. Not surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you hate science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs, you probably donâ(TM)t want people using it to justify stuff.

  3. She's a witch! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to the Post's article, "Instead of 'science-based' or 'evidence-based,' the suggested phrase is 'CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes."

    So if the community standards and wishes means they prefer to rely on religion, superstition and other make-beliefs mumbo-jumbo, science has to stand aside?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:She's a witch! by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "gender studies" is not a religion. Leftist ideology is not a religion.

      They merely don't identify as a religion.

      Let me tell you my biggest childhood formative moment. It was triggered by banner shapes.

      Communism in Poland fell when I was in early elementary school, yet I still got to be forced to attend a Labor Day parade. By then, even the threat was degraded (instead of "anyone missing without a valid excuse will be expelled from school" it was down to "will have semester's grade lowered") but we still had to go. Then, a few years later, there were Corpus Christi parades. By the letter of law not mandatory, but a kid who didn't attend still received strong verbal chew-out. Both parades looked the same: a guy blabbing something through loudspeakers, the public chanting slogans, dozens of people carrying banners of a specific shape. The very same shape, only the images and texts changed.

      Scripture? Check (works of Marx, Engels and Lenin). Clergy? Check. Rituals? Check. Portraits of prophets and saints everywhere? Check. Proselitysm? Check. Hatred for unbelievers? Big fat check.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:She's a witch! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Only Christianity and Judaism maintain that God created a material reality that was (1) separate from Him, and (2) knowable.

      LMAO. Trends come and go in all religions. The Islamic Golden Age was a time of amazing scientific and philosophical progress, but they gave it up. Catholics rejected science, then eventually came to embrace it. Protestants loved science, then modern evangelical sects came to despise it.

      I was raised Southern Baptist, but wholly abandoned it because of their insane insistence that reality was wrong. When a man tells you the sky is green and Jesus rode a dinosaur, it's awfully hard not to laugh at his opinions on anything else. Whatever else I might think about their organization, the Catholic church seems to be pretty good about science these days. I don't hear anything bad about the scientific beliefs of mainstream protestant groups (that is, ones that aren't American extremists). That said, Hindu and Taoist countries are doing lots of amazing science, and the OECD says that lots of barely religious countries are beating the US in science education.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:She's a witch! by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am vary curious about this place where you grew up, where parades are dependent on both the economics of Poland and a town in Texas. Or was that some kind of "labor day is communist" thing? (it's not communist)

      In Poland, International Worker's Day (May 1st) is known as "Labour Day." And the Polish People's Republic made full use of the propaganda opportunity.

      Corpus Christi is a Catholic Feast Day-- the Thursday of the 9th week after Easter. And it's a state holiday in Poland.

    4. Re:She's a witch! by Megol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No religion also have common definition(s) and this is obviously not a proper use of the term. Stop making up things and use the right words, you are on a technology orientated website and _should_ know the value in proper use of terms when communicating.

      So you don't like gender studies. Okay. What makes that a religion rather than a science-based thing (coupled with philosophy in many cases)?
      You can go about it and say the studies that have been made are weak, done in the wrong manner, have biases etc. and that would be proper. But there are studies done. Some may be wrong (I don't care and have not read any so have no idea) but that doesn't make it religion.
      You may not agree with some of the philosophy and again criticism would be proper - however not making the field into a religion.

      But the "standard" of expression of genders etc. isn't fixed either in local history or as seen globally. That means the field is a proper one to study and reason about.
      Personally I don't give a crap - people can feel think and act as they want as long as they behave respectfully towards others.

  4. In others words, a Christian Taliban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Authorized clerics have the final say on what is true and proper in our society.

  5. Mentally unstable people run the government. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    In 298 days, President Trump has made 1,628 false and misleading claims

    1. Re:Mentally unstable people run the government. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...has forbidden the Centers for Disease Control from using seven terms in certain documents...

      Quick, give me a single context in which it makes sense for CDC to avoid the words "science-based" or "evidence-based".

      Time's up. I know that wasn't long, but I thought I'd save you the wasted effort of spending more than 2 seconds looking for something that doesn't exist. If the CD-freaking-C writes "For science-based work" in the memo field of your paycheck, it's appropriate because that's the whole reason they exist.

      Any restrictions on this are nothing but political posturing. That Slashdot, WaPo, NYT, or any other group would be calling it out doesn't mean they're wrong.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re: Mentally unstable people run the government. by PoopJuggler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Call it whatever you want, it's still an officially sanctioned endorsement of double-speak at a scientific health department at the top level of the government. That should fucking worry you.

    3. Re: Mentally unstable people run the government. by laird · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not just changing the words, it's changing the meaning. They are saying that decisions can't be 'science-based' or 'evidence-based,' but instead must be 'based on science in consideration with community standards and wishes." It's a way to force the CDC to do things (like perhaps denying global climate change, pretending lots of people aren't dying from gunshots, etc.) because saying those things would upset some "wishes".

      More than anything, this reminds me of the batshit crazy way the USSR politicized science, forcing people to do do insane things because they were ideologically correct, enforced by not just defunding research, but eventually imprisoning and executing thousands of scientists. This led to crop failures and famine, among other horrors, and of course derailed Russia science (and to a lesser degree, Chinese science) for decades. Details at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
  6. wtf by Holi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the fuck does "community standards and wishes" have to do with scientific evidence.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:wtf by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's codespeak for 'popular oppinion.'

      If scientific evidence says that telling teenagers not to have sex doesn't actually work while condoms generally do, but popular opinion says that telling teenagers how to use a condom promotes sin and will send them all to burn in Hell, then both views are now given equal validity in the decision-making process.

  7. Use God too by AndyKron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And when asking Republicans for budget money use the word "God" a lot. They like God. Finding a Bible verse to back you up is pure gold.

  8. Dolts by rnturn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Science does not care about your "community standards", your religious viewpoints, or any other fantasies you believe in this week.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  9. Don't want your religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your religious beliefs, made law, impinge upon my freedom. Why can't you live your own life, mind your own business, and leave the rest of us alone? You've already proved that you don't really believe what you espouse(voting for Roy, etc) so please don't force your so-called beliefs on the rest of us.

  10. Re:All Fetus are Babies by meglon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No.

    Murder is legal definition, and until recently had never been applied to fetus... and the only reason it is now, in a few places, is because conservative con artists prey on the lack of intelligence of religious extremists and idiots like you to get into office, so they blur the line between your bullshit fantasy and reality... EXACTLY as this article points out they're doing now.

    If you want to see the cause of many more abortions, look at the worthless cocksuckers refusing to teach sex ed to teens so they can make better choices, and making contraceptives even harder to get so unwanted pregnancies can be avoided. Those are the worthless fucking baby killers... cunts like you.

    So, what we've shown is you know nothing about science, and nothing about the law... you're completely fucking worthless in this conversation.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  11. Re:All Fetus are Babies by dryeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's easy to tell the people who don't want abortions happening, they try to prevent them through education, making birth control available and empowering women to say no.
    Then we have the average right winger who really wants to dominate women, keep them ignorant, impregnate them as early as possible, throw a big guilt trip on them to make them go through with the pregnancy and then put them down for being a single mother.
    You're right, the repression of women will be compared to slavery, just not for the bullshit reasons that you give.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism