| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Sogobia" |
| Date: |
21 Dec 2004 10:20:44 PM |
| Object: |
We don't need no stinking facts, we'll conjure up our own!! |
Published on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
The Attack on Science
by Marjorie Heins
From environmental hazards to sex education, the federal government in the
past several years has been twisting science to political ends. The ends are
sometimes ideological - as in the suppression of information about condoms
and sexual safety - and sometimes simply take the form of favors to business
interests that would like to see less environmental, public health, or
workplace safety regulation. But the pattern has become so pervasive that
much of the scientific community is up in arms. The question is, what can be
done to stop it?
Concern about the current administration's manipulation and distortion of
science goes back at least to July 2003, when the Interior Department
introduced a new book into the Grand Canyon National Park's official
bookstore. Titled Grand Canyon: A Different View, the book takes issue with
extensive geological evidence that the canyon evolved over several million
years, and instead argues that the canyon was forged by a single
"catastrophic" event only a few thousand years ago: the great flood of
biblical fame.
Leading geological associations protested this introduction of creationism
into the National Park Service's educational programs. They pointed out that
a major purpose of the Park Service is "to promote the use of sound science
in all its programs." The government's top geologist, David Shaver,
explained that A Different View "purports to be science when it is not," and
makes "claims that are counter to widely accepted geological evidence."
Nevertheless, the book was reordered after stock ran out, and as of October
2004 was still being marketed by the Parks Service.
If this conflict between science and religious fundamentalism was just one
more instance of Biblical literalists' unending effort to undermine
evolution, a report released just a month after the appearance of A
Different View on government bookstore shelves detailed more contemporary
distortions of science. Prepared by the Democratic staff of the House
Government Reform Committee at the request of Congressman Henry Waxman, this
report described the purging of safer-sex information from the Centers for
Disease Control Web site, the posting of misinformation on the National
Cancer Institute site that asserted an increased risk of breast cancer among
women who have had abortions, and the suppression of information about lead
poisoning, global warming, prescription drug advertising, and water
pollution caused by the oil and gas industries.
In February 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a
similar, but longer and more detailed report. Divided into two parts, it
first documented "Suppression and Distortion of Research Findings at Federal
Agencies," including information on climate change (global warming), air
quality (mercury emissions from power plants and other air pollutants),
reproductive health (sex education, HIV-AIDS, and the alleged breast
cancer-abortion link), airborne bacteria, Iraq's aluminum tubes (erroneously
claimed by the administration to be part of a nuclear weapons program),
endangered species, and forest management. The second part of the UCS
report, "Undermining the Quality and Integrity of the Appointment Process,"
described the purging of qualified scientists from federal advisory panels,
the appointment of less qualified, and often industry-connected
replacements, and the vetting of panel candidates with political questions
such as whether they had voted for President Bush and would support his
policies.
These political litmus tests for scientific advisory panels were
particularly troubling, for they evidenced a basic misunderstanding of the
panels' purposes. Scientific advisory committees are supposed to provide
objective, unbiased information to guide government officials in making
policy that will protect public health, occupational safety, and the
environment - not to give an aura of respectability to policies that
political leaders have decided upon in advance.
Perhaps the starkest example of ideology trumping science in the appointment
of advisors was the selection of Dr. W. David Hager to the Food & Drug
Administration's Reproductive Health Advisory Committee. The UCS report
recounted that the administration initially suggested Hager as chair of the
FDA committee, but "after widespread public outcry" because of his "scant
credentials and highly partisan political views," the administration settled
for making him a committee member rather than the chair. The report noted
that Hager "is best known for co-authoring a book that recommends particular
scripture readings as a treatment for premenstrual syndrome and, in his
private practice, Hager has reportedly refused to prescribe contraceptives
to unmarried women."
Accompanying the UCS's February 2004 report was a strongly-worded statement
of concern by 62 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel Prize winners.
"Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies
that have made the United States of America the world's most powerful nation
and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy," the statement began.
"Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in
public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an
objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences." But the
Bush administration had disregarded this principle by "placing people who
are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in
official posts and on scientific advisory committees," and by censoring
reports by "the government's own scientists. * Other administrations have,
on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so
wide a front."
The administration quickly responded. The director of the President's Office
of Science and Technology Policy, John Marburger III, issued a statement the
same day as the scientists', accusing them of making "sweeping
generalizations * based on what appears to be a miscellany of criticisms"
largely from "partisan political figures and advocacy organizations."
Marburger followed up in April 2004 with a 20-page single-spaced rebuttal to
the UCS report. It touted Bush Administration expenditures and achievements,
insisted that advisory committee appointees are put through a "rigorous
selection process," and otherwise emphasized the positive - for example,
that CIA Director George Tenet had acknowledged that none of Iraq's aluminum
tubes found so far met the specifications for nuclear weapons; that the
President had appointed Democrats to science advisory panels; and that the
misleading statements about abortion and breast cancer had been revised
after further review. Marburger also acknowledged that an Environmental
Protection Agency report on mercury emissions should not have copied
directly from an industry memo.
But as the UCS painstakingly pointed out in its reply to Marburger two weeks
later, "aside from a couple of minutiae, the White House document fails to
offer much evidence to support its claims," and instead "offers irrelevant
information and fails to address the central point of many charges in the
UCS report." Reviewing the record on mercury emissions, climate change,
abstinence-only education, HIV/AIDS, breast cancer, airborne bacteria,
Iraq's aluminum tubes, endangered species, lead poisoning, forest
management, workplace safety, and political litmus tests for advisory
panels, the UCS pointed out that Marburger had not in fact denied many of
the charges.
The next salvo was fired by the UCS in July 2004, when it published a
follow-up report. It documented administration actions that:
minimized findings on the environmental devastation caused by strip mining;
prevented approval of over-the-counter sale of an emergency contraceptive
despite advisory panel consensus on its safety (the drug is available
without prescription in 33 other countries);
deleted scientific advice on endangered salmon;
used flawed science in Fish & Wildlife Service findings on endangered
species (Florida panthers, bull trout, and rare swans); and
continued to pose partisan political questions to advisory committees
nominees (e.g., "what I thought about President Bush: did I like him, what
did I think of the job he was doing*").
The introduction to this second report quoted UCS board chair and physicist
Kurt Gottfried: "The absence of a candid and constructive response from the
White House is troubling, as these issues - from childhood lead poisoning
and mercury emissions to climate change and nuclear weapons - have serious
consequences for public health, well-being, and national security."
The UCS's concerns were well-publicized, and led to a lengthy New York Times
article in October 2004. It quoted Marburger explaining that "this
administration really does not like regulation and it believes in market
processes *, so there's always going to be a tilt in an administration like
this one to a certain set of actions that you take to achieve some policy
objective." The Times also quoted one marine ecologist who had been
nominated for the Arctic Research Commission and was asked as the first
interview question from a White House staffer: "Do you support the
president?" She replied that "she was not a fan of Mr. Bush's economic and
foreign policies. 'That was the end of the interview,' she said. 'I was
removed from consideration instantly.'"
By December 2004, more than 5,000 scientists had signed on to the original
February 2004 statement of concern. Forty-eight are Nobel laureates, 62 are
National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 are members of the National
Academy of Sciences. But despite the growing alarums, occasional
embarrassing publicity, and continuing pressure from Congressman Waxman's
office, there have been only sporadic retreats from the administration's
politicization of science.
For example, a number of advisory panel nominations that were at first
rejected, were later accepted after protest and pressure from leaders in the
field. The misinformation about breast cancer and abortion was removed from
the National Cancer Institute site and after several months, accurate
information was restored. Most important, perhaps, the administration
continues to claim its respect for science and deny that its policies are
driven by business interests or the magical thinking of its fundamentalist
base. As long as the administration accepts that scientific impartiality and
integrity are the agreed-upon goals, there is the potential that publicity
and pressure can prevent or reverse at least some partisan distortions of
scientific findings.
The UCS has ambitious plans in this respect: further dissemination of
information; organizing roundtables and support groups at universities
across the country; toolkits of event planning materials; classroom
resources; more publicity; working groups on the various scientific policy
issues; and coordination with Rep. Waxman, who introduced legislation in
late 2004 that would have created "an independent commission to investigate
the politicization of science under the Bush administration." The
legislation was defeated in a nearly party-line vote.
In part, this battle over scientific integrity in government is part of a
longer-term struggle for Englightenment values and against theocratic
yearnings in America. As Gary Wills recently wrote, "America, the first real
democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical
intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular
sciences." But "can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin
Birth than in evolution [according to recent surveys] still be called an
Enlightened nation?" The jury is still out.
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/1221-32.htm
--
A pattern of deception
A hard truth appears to have escaped the notice of the public and received
scant attention from the media: Bush is the first president in American
history to use deceptive propaganda as his main means of communications in
selling his policies. His pattern of deception continues unabated and in
direct conflict with the notion of the public's informed consent that is
central to American democracy.
Walter Williams is professor emeritus at the University of Washington's
Evans School of Public Affairs.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/6378746.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: We don't need no stinking facts, we'll conjure up our own!! |
22 Dec 2004 08:32:48 AM |
|
|
Sogobia wrote:
Published on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
The Attack on Science
by Marjorie Heins
From environmental hazards to sex education, the federal government in the
past several years has been twisting science to political ends.
Get real dude. Has there been a time when gov. was not political? We
don't just twist science. We twist economics, religion, the courts and
the Constitution to fit the politics.
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sogobia" |
|
| Title: Re: We don't need no stinking facts, we'll conjure up our own!! |
22 Dec 2004 11:15:57 AM |
|
|
"Werner Hetzner" <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in message
news:41C98592.3030307@mac.com...
Sogobia wrote:
Published on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
The Attack on Science
by Marjorie Heins
From environmental hazards to sex education, the federal government in the
past several years has been twisting science to political ends.
Get real dude. Has there been a time when gov. was not political? We don't
just twist science. We twist economics, religion, the courts and the
Constitution to fit the politics.
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
The rightwing has become so used to fudging reality that it has many sources
of "facts" using only those which benefit its powermongering and profit.
Scientific facts shouldn't be changeable due their nature and that is where
you have your message all wrong.
--
A pattern of deception
A hard truth appears to have escaped the notice of the public and received
scant attention from the media: Bush is the first president in American
history to use deceptive propaganda as his main means of communications in
selling his policies. His pattern of deception continues unabated and in
direct conflict with the notion of the public's informed consent that is
central to American democracy.
Walter Williams is professor emeritus at the University of Washington's
Evans School of Public Affairs.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/6378746.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Another Day Another OS" |
|
| Title: Re: We don't need no stinking facts, we'll conjure up our own!! |
22 Dec 2004 11:24:48 AM |
|
|
Sogobia wrote:
The rightwing has become so used to fudging reality that it has many sources
of "facts" using only those which benefit its powermongering and profit.
Scientific facts shouldn't be changeable due their nature and that is where
you have your message all wrong.
The pathological liars on the left wouldn't know a scientific fact if it
ran up and bit them on the *****.
Just because you idiots on the left like to slap "science" and "fact" on
every crackpot fantasy and scare tactic you conjure up doesn't make them
scientific or factual.
Beware of trendy "truths."
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18342/article_detail.asp
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson121704.html
--
==
But [Democrats] have also been enthralled by the most intolerant of
their interest groups. The liberal hostility to funding faith-based
social programs—which are provided mostly by poor black and Latino
congregations who need the financial help—is a witlessly secularist
reaction against some of the most successful antipoverty efforts in
the U.S. The liberals' defense of abortion beyond the first trimester
has no moral rationale unless the life of the mother is at risk.
Joe Klein 11-13-2004
"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all
evil."
"There is no greater tyranny than to force a man to pay for something
he does not want, simply because you think it would be good for him."
Robert Heinlein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sogobia" |
|
| Title: Re: We don't need no stinking facts, we'll conjure up our own!! |
22 Dec 2004 11:47:12 AM |
|
|
"Another Day Another OS" <USpammerzSuck@my.privacy> wrote in message
news:cqcaku$2n0$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
Sogobia wrote:
The rightwing has become so used to fudging reality that it has many
sources of "facts" using only those which benefit its powermongering and
profit.
Scientific facts shouldn't be changeable due their nature and that is
where you have your message all wrong.
The pathological liars on the left wouldn't know a scientific fact if it
ran up and bit them on the *****.
Just because you idiots on the left like to slap "science" and "fact" on
every crackpot fantasy and scare tactic you conjure up doesn't make them
scientific or factual.
Beware of trendy "truths."
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18342/article_detail.asp
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson121704.html
Instead of rebutting with your hate and demonizing why don't you attempt
some factual data? Is it because you don't have any that is based in
reality?
It's too bad that you rightwing propagandists have no scientific support for
your facts. Pushing religious tomfoolery like the Grand Canyon being created
in thousands instead of millions of years exposes your lack of substance.
Bush and the rightwing are hiding their heads in the sand for one reason or
the other concerning global warming while on the other hand the worlds
credible scientists and the Pentagon have already issued warnings regarding
the devastating consequences of believing rightwing lies and misinformation.
------------------------------------------------------------
From the original article:
From environmental hazards to sex education, the federal government in the
past several years has been twisting science to political ends. The ends are
sometimes ideological - as in the suppression of information about condoms
and sexual safety - and sometimes simply take the form of favors to business
interests that would like to see less environmental, public health, or
workplace safety regulation. But the pattern has become so pervasive that
much of the scientific community is up in arms. The question is, what can be
done to stop it?
-snip-
--
A pattern of deception
A hard truth appears to have escaped the notice of the public and received
scant attention from the media: Bush is the first president in American
history to use deceptive propaganda as his main means of communications in
selling his policies. His pattern of deception continues unabated and in
direct conflict with the notion of the public's informed consent that is
central to American democracy.
Walter Williams is professor emeritus at the University of Washington's
Evans School of Public Affairs.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/6378746.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
