Bush attacks science...again.

[pupdog]

from Andonyx:

n addition to the many examples I've mentioned above. Bush has on multiple ocassions either ignored, derided, or sought to undermine the sientific process and the free exchange of information between scientists because of political motivations.

Indeed--the Bush Administration has ignored adviced, stacked advisory committees, appointed industry lobbyists to cabinet positions, changed or erased Web pages that offered information not in conformance with his views. There have been numerous items and editorials in Science magazine about this; a number of examples are also discussed at http://www.reform.house.gov/min

 

[BTox]

Re: Re: Re: Bush attacks science...again.

Hey, look, just because he spent money on space exploration does not mean that he has not proposed measures that would harm scientific research and informative exchange multiple times.

Examples, please. I do agree that stem cell research is one.

Almost immediately after the establishment of the patriot act many universities and science conferences were discouraged from publishing papers related to nuclear research.

Give me a break - this is national security after a terrorist attack and threat of more.

In addition to the many examples I've mentioned above. Bush has on multiple ocassions either ignored, derided, or sought to undermine the sientific process and the free exchange of information between scientists because of political motivations.

Many examples mentioned above? You listed ONE.

The title of this thread is right-on.

No, it's your biased opinion.

 

[Andonyx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush attacks science...again.

Give me a break - this is national security after a terrorist attack and threat of more.



Many examples mentioned above? You listed ONE.

If you look at my third post on this thread that lists four more examples with links. Please read the entire thread.

 

[BTox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush attacks science...again.

If you look at my third post on this thread that lists four more examples with links. Please read the entire thread.

Just did. Two of the links did not work, the other two are from Waxman - hardly a credible and/or unbiased source. If you come up with something legitimate, let me know...

 

[Chaos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush attacks science...again.

Just did. Two of the links did not work, the other two are from Waxman - hardly a credible and/or unbiased source. If you come up with something legitimate, let me know...

Didn´t the Bush administration order government (or government-funded) sites about birth control changed? Something about abortion - or the pill, I´m not sure - causing cancer?
I am sure there was a thread about it here or in the science forum a few months ago.

That would make it two examples.

Does anybody know if the Administration has an official opinion on the creationism vs. evolution debate? That could be number three.

 

[ingoa]

Being a scientist myself I'd like to point out that some aspects are very muddled here.

My 2 cents (euro) version:
- Science is about finding facts
- Science tries to explain these facts by theories
- Correct theories will make correct predictions
- Wrong theories will be dropped as they can not explain facts (new or old)

Take an example:
- CO2 is rising
- The climate appearantly gets warmer
- There are indications that at least part of ot is man made

These are more or less the facts (very, very simplified verion for the sake of the argument).

Science might even propose a cure. But the implementation is POLITICS! And politics is beyond the scope of pure science. Whether Kyoto is a good thing is not for science to decide. Scientists are neither elected or divined to run the country (neither yours nor mine). To review scientific reports that demand political action is sound. What does a meteorologist know about economics or industry?
It is not surprising if there is an ideological bias in these reviews. This is the government the people have elected. Exactly for that bias. If the people don't appreciate it anymore they should go to the next election.

 

[shanek]

- Wrong theories will be dropped as they can not explain facts (new or old)

In science, yes. When was the last time such a thing happened in politics?

Take an example:
- CO2 is rising
- The climate appearantly gets warmer
- There are indications that at least part of ot is man made

Sure...but as I said, you have politicos on one side denying it, and on the other side lumping on a whole bunch of assumptions such as the ones I listed. How science works is NOT how politics works.

Science might even propose a cure. But the implementation is POLITICS!

Why? Government has failed in practically everything it has tried to achieve. Government can't even keep drugs out of its own jails. Why should we trust them with something as profoundly important as this?

Whether Kyoto is a good thing is not for science to decide.

Even if most climatologists agree that it won't have any positive effect on GW, and most economists agree it will stifle if not ruin economic progress?

Scientists are neither elected or divined to run the country (neither yours nor mine).

Neither are politicians, at least in the US. In the US, politicians are supposed to be servants whose sole purpose in office is to protect our rights against those who would use force against us. We the people are supposed to run our own lives.

What does a meteorologist know about economics or industry?

As much as your average politician does, I'd wager. But an economist, on the other hand...

See, you're making an enormous leap here. You're saying that science can show that something is a problem, and use evidence to support that. That's fine. But you make the leap, without any support whatsoever, that government, which has been pretty much a total failure at everything, is somehow the solution for those problems. And yet, the more the government interferes in our lives, the worse these problems get. We were close to fixing the problem of poverty through free market forces before government stepped in to fix it; now more and more people are trapped in a cycle of poverty that they can't break out of. Government came in to fix health care, and costs skyrocketed; we went from a family of 4 paying no more for health care coverage than a power bill to very expensive insurance that isn't even comprehensive, and hospital stays require a second mortgage on the house. On and on and on. This is NOT a good track record.

So, what evidence is there at all that government is any kind of solution to problems that science discovers?

 

[Andonyx]

New York -- In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.

That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.

"When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/23/MN300070.DTL

First of all, do you dismiss Waxman merely because he's a democratic congressman?

If so then you're missing easily verifiable facts about instances in which the White House staff altered reports THEY comissioned, such as the HHS report on American Healthcare problems which was heavily altered before it's release.

Wether Waxman is biased, those reports were altered by politcos, not scientist or statistical analysts.

Now are you going to find some reason to dismiss the above article because you don't like the SFgate?

 

[BTox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush attacks science...again.

Didn´t the Bush administration order government (or government-funded) sites about birth control changed? Something about abortion - or the pill, I´m not sure - causing cancer?
I am sure there was a thread about it here or in the science forum a few months ago.

That would make it two examples.

Any evidence for this claim? There is nothing on CDC or FDA websites about abortions or contraceptives - and contraceptives are still legally sold.

 

[BTox]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/23/MN300070.DTL

First of all, do you dismiss Waxman merely because he's a democratic congressman?

If so then you're missing easily verifiable facts about instances in which the White House staff altered reports THEY comissioned, such as the HHS report on American Healthcare problems which was heavily altered before it's release.

Wether Waxman is biased, those reports were altered by politcos, not scientist or statistical analysts.

Now are you going to find some reason to dismiss the above article because you don't like the SFgate? [/B]

I dismiss Waxman because he is a buffoon, a political hack whom I wouldn't trust on any topic, especially in an election year.

Now you seem to be confusing political moves with attacks on science. Politicians of both parties make recommendations/policies counter to perfect science all the time - this is nothing new. If Bush was really out to attack science, why is he throwing so much money at it? Have you read the FY2005 budget? Have you seen the significant increases in funding for space, agricultural, environmental and health sciences? The NSF??

 

[Andonyx]

I dismiss Waxman because he is a buffoon, a political hack whom I wouldn't trust on any topic, especially in an election year.

Now you seem to be confusing political moves with attacks on science. Politicians of both parties make recommendations/policies counter to perfect science all the time - this is nothing new. If Bush was really out to attack science, why is he throwing so much money at it? Have you read the FY2005 budget? Have you seen the significant increases in funding for space, agricultural, environmental and health sciences? The NSF??

Okay well first some political moves are attacks, and some aren't. I would argue actually changing or censoring a report to fit agenda is an attack.

Choosing which science to act on or not act on is a political move.

Influencing the report above is an attack because it is a deliberate undermining of the scientific method. You can't alter data to fit desired results.

If they had released the report, and simply chose not to subscribe to recommendations, well, it's political.

And hey even expanding the budget does little good for science if they alter results and data. I see what he's proposed for the space program, that's great, but if the data that comes back to the science community is not trustworthy data, we may as well never have done it.

And finally, don't get so excited yet, remember when Bush propsed to spend 15 Billion in Aids prevention and research over five years?

That was approved by congress in May, 2003.

So far absolutely no money has been spent in that program, and Bush has scaled back the amount of money promised and delayed the payments... He has proposed a 2.7 billion dollar spending allocation for the 2005 fiscal year budget.

So don't count the money until it's in the bank.

Anyway, I have no opinion on Waxman one way or another other than that he's obviously biased as a member of the opposing political party, but your characterizations of him are not reasons why i should dismiss the report about Bush's manipulation of scientific data and findings. Can you give me any concrete examples of how this report is flawed, or inaccurate?

I could easily make the same claim that Bush is a bufoon, and a political hack, and I really don't trust him on any issues either.

 

[Andonyx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush attacks science...again.

Any evidence for this claim? There is nothing on CDC or FDA websites about abortions or contraceptives - and contraceptives are still legally sold.

Here are some references I could find, I think Chaos is remembering this:

* Bush administration Web sites remove medically accurate information (see
also Reducing access to family planning) - October 2002

http://lists.kabissa.org/lists/archives/public/pha-exchange/msg00606.html

President Bush considers nominating John Klink - an ardent opponent of birth control and a spokesperson for the Vatican's opposition to condom use - to oversee the United States' global population program - May 23, 2001


President Bush prevents taxpayer funding for additional stem cells beyond existing stem cell lines, placing severe limits on stem cell research - August 9, 2001


Bush administration representatives fight sexuality education and oppose condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention at the UN Children's Summit - May 2002


President Bush withholds more than $200 million in funding for programs to support women and address HIV/AIDS in Afghanistan - August 2, 2002


President Bush Freezes $3 million in funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to anti-choice objections to the WHO's human reproduction research program - October 2002


Bush administration Web sites remove medically accurate information - October 2002


Family planning foe Rep. Chris Smith calls on USAID to exclude reproductive health organizations in developing countries from receiving HIV/AIDS funding - October 24, 2002

http://www.ippf.org/newsinfo/pressreleases/secret_war_chron.htm

Those are A women's group and PLanned parenthood links...

 

[Dancing David]

That doesn't mean that there aren't better and worse ways of deciding that.


I realize that, but I think that it is not science to manipulate the data for political ends. (Or to get get grant money! )I feel that the science should be what it is and the decision about what to do about it should be political. Unfortunately there are areas where the is political pressure upon the scientists, which is too bad.

I think our system is about as good a system as we can get.



You're only presenting half the story here.
I think you are silly to say that. the sceince says that man kinds intervention in the atmoshere is leading to global warming. Science also says that this effect may be less than potential natural factors in the earth history.
The politicians are divided between the "GW is happening, is caused by humans, and will cause great amounts of destruction if nothing is done, and Kyoto is the best way of dealing with it" and "GW isn't happening at all."
Yes, and it is the politcal realm to asses the risk, so?

The real science supports neither contention. Yes, greenhouse gases are slowly causing the temperatures to rise, but: Is it part of a natural cycle? How much do humans have to do with it?

See the above, there is little debate amongst climatologist on the general nature of global warming, especialy when it comes to methane and other complex hydro-carbon and things like CFCs. there is little debate on that.
What will be the detrimental effects, if any?

Yes, there is debate as to the nature of potential changes, but the models are consistent in the impact on known weather patterns.Local effects will vary. In the Midwest we will loose rain.

Will there be any beneficial effects?
Again local effects, in the Midwest we will loose moisture in most models.

What will the effect of balancing factors be? How warm will it get? When will it stop and start cooling down again? Question after question after question that science doesn't have a full answer for, and yet the answers to these are being assumed by those with a political agenda.

I agree that there are not clear answers, but it would be purely a political process to decide risk and if intervention is needed.
But again most climatologists are in agreement that man's pollution is warming the mean temperature on the earth. As for the eventual effects, that is a real crap shoot, the Midwest will get drier, which will suck for us, other parts of the world will get more rain. great for them.

yet the answers to these are being assumed by those with a political agenda.
Yes including those who say there is no problem, that is why risk assesment is a political process.

 

[Dancing David]

This isn't exactly rocket science, but Bush did propose a man who is strongly anti-abortion to head up the reproductive health services. He was a very political doctor, caused all of the Matriarchal Vision Centers to get real upset. Knid of like making an atheist pope.

 

[BTox]

Okay well first some political moves are attacks, and some aren't. I would argue actually changing or censoring a report to fit agenda is an attack.

If you believe that, then all Presidents have done so.

And hey even expanding the budget does little good for science if they alter results and data. I see what he's proposed for the space program, that's great, but if the data that comes back to the science community is not trustworthy data, we may as well never have done it.

And finally, don't get so excited yet, remember when Bush propsed to spend 15 Billion in Aids prevention and research over five years?

That was approved by congress in May, 2003.

So far absolutely no money has been spent in that program, and Bush has scaled back the amount of money promised and delayed the payments... He has proposed a 2.7 billion dollar spending allocation for the 2005 fiscal year budget.

So don't count the money until it's in the bank.

Don't know what you are talking about here. Do you know anything about science? I'm curious. Anyway, just a few examples of research SPENDING, not budget:

National Science Foundation

Research: 2001 - 3.357 billion, 2003 - 4.069 billion
Total discretionary: 2001 - 4.431 billion, 2003 - 5.323 billion

Health & Human Services

FDA: 2001 - 1.268 billion, 2003 - 1.652 billion
CDC: 2001 - 3.938 billion, 2003 - 4.351 billion
NIH: 2001 - 20.368 billion, 2003 - 26.971 billion

Agriculture:

Research: 2001 - 2.120 billion, 2003, 2.492 billion

Regarding AIDS research, again, don't know where you get your numbers, but:

CDC: 2003 spending - 976 million
NIH: 2003 spending - 1.908 billion

 

[shanek]

I realize that, but I think that it is not science to manipulate the data for political ends. (Or to get get grant money! )

I agree. In fact, I'd say that it's not for anybody to do that.

Yes, and it is the politcal realm to asses the risk, so?

Except that they're doing so without much regard for what the science actually says.

The real science supports neither contention.

Exactly my point.

I agree that there are not clear answers, but it would be purely a political process to decide risk and if intervention is needed.

Why do you think that this will be decided on a realistic assessment of the facts and not on what will benefit politically connected groups and corporations at the expense of the rest of us?

 

[shanek]

If you believe that, then all Presidents have done so.

Why is this always presented as some sort of defense? So what if all other Presidents did so? How does that somehow make it right?

 

[Bearguin]

Here's the good part:

If a report calls for regulatory action, it is subject to this new "peer review" process (I know the reports I have been involved with have always received peer review before publication). If the report says no action is needed, it does not receive the same peer review. And there's a question of bias?

Bit late into the topic, but the above makes sense to me. If I am going to change something, I want to be sure the change is based on good science and a peer review is appropriate. And if something suggests the status quo, I think it does need less rigorous support. MAybe this isn't good science, but it does strike me as common sense.

 

[pupdog]

If there is a need for action, but some special interest group doesn't want to take action, and submits junk science to support that stance, we are poorly served. Sometimes it's what is not said that is the important part. In short, adequate peer review should be provided in both cases.

An example (back to thread): Department of HHS was leaning on scientists studying gay men and prostitutes. (Admitedly, Congress got excited first after hearing about studies of naughty things). Source: Science 300(5618):403 (2003).

Another example: Bush Administration replaced a panel of about 2 dozen scientists engaged in a study of fish in the Missouri River, & replaced them with 2 officials to head a new team. Source: Science 302(5648):1131 (2003).

Some people may think Henry Waxman is a moron, but the examples he cites have been discussed elsewhere.

 

[Dancing David]

I agree. In fact, I'd say that it's not for anybody to do that.


Tweaking the data is an unfortunate part of science, peer review sometimes finds it, which is the point of the OP. In that on any given topic they should choose the peer reveiw from the field itself, petro geology say. they should ask petro geologists who should vette the peer review process. Still kind of tricky.

Except that they're doing so without much regard for what the science actually says.

that is a matter of political opinion, I feel that we are not doing enough to reduce the risk from enviromental toxins, so i exercise my right to vote in the elections and the compromise moves forward.

Exactly my point.

I misquoted myself as you. I feel that the science says that mankind is causing the global climate to warm.How much and what impact are somewhat contested but i feel only by ...um... a certain political faction. But again the risk is a political decision. The only problem I see with Kyoto, is that we give our military a complete exemption on the use of CFCs. And I thought we didn't sign Kyoto any how.
If the rest of the world started emitting polutants at the same rate as the US per capita, there would be like twenty times more polution in the atmoshere.

Why do you think that this will be decided on a realistic assessment of the facts and not on what will benefit politically connected groups and corporations at the expense of the rest of us?

I don't , I vote for those who I feel will represent my point of view, I do support campaign finance reform and other controversial restrictions of 'free speech' to control the influence of money in politics.
I do what i can, I drive my car as fast as I can to reduce the amount of time I pollute.