SKEPTIC magazine vs. Bush

[DialecticMaterialist]

I was actually rather surprised recently to see Skeptic actually put forth political commentary. It seems as though enough members of the Skeptic's Society seem to believe that the Bush administration either ignores or abuses science (as well as scientists) enough for the group to include a rather scathing criticism in its most recent issue.

To take some excerpts from the article The Politization Of Science in the Bush Administration Science-As-Public-Relations by Dylan Otto Krider:

There's a war going on- and not just the one in Iraq. This conflict may not get as much media play, but it could have just as great an impact on our safety, national prestidge, and long-term economic health. It is a war over the integrity of science itself, and the casualties are everywhere: career scientists and enforcement officials are resigning en masse from government agencies, citing an inability to do their jobs due to what they see as the ruthless politicization of science by the Bush administration. Bruce Boler, Marrianne Horinko, Rich Bondi, J.P. Suarez, and Eric Schaeffer are among those who have resigned from the EPA alone. In a letter to the New York Times, former EPA administrator Russel Train, who worked for both Nixon and Ford, wrote, "I can state categorically that never was such White House intrusion into the business of the EPA during my tenure." Government meddling has reached such a level that European scientists are voicing concerns that Bush may not merely be undermining U.S. dominance in the sciences, but global research as well.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently published the results of an investigation into the administration's misuse of science called "Scientific Integrity in Policy Making," with a letter signed by over 60 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel Laureates.

For instance, when the National Cancer Institute's web site was altered to suggest there was a link between abortion and breast cancer Marburger described the change as only a routine update. What actually troubled the UCS was that the findings of established science had been removed in favor of language that promoted the lonely crusade of Dr. Joel Brind.

For those unfamiliar with Dr. Brind, he disocovered the supposed Abortion Breast Cancer link (or ABC as he calls it) after "making contact" with a local right-to-life group shortly after becoming a born-again Christian. "With a new belief in a meaningful universe," he explains, "I felt compelled to use science for its noblest, life-saving purpose." Despite the fact that Brind is completely at odds with his peers, the web site was updated with the following text:

[T]he possible relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been examined in over thirty published studies since 1975. Some studies have reported a statistically significant evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions, while others have merely suggested an increased risk. Other studies have found no increase in risk among women who have had an interupted pregnancy.

After an outcry by members of Congress, the National Cancer Institute convened a three-day conference where experts reviewed the evidence, again concluding "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in cancer risk," ranking the science as "well established"

To prove that he took the issue of global warming seriously, Marburger shamelessly cited a study that President Bush had commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences. The administration had asked the NAS to find "weaknesses" in climate science studies to derail an international global warming treaty. When the commissioned report instead confirmed human-induced climate change and mentioned fossil fuels as a major culptrit the EPA decided to replace the findings in its Report on the Environment with a discredited study funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

Then there are those examples the UCS does not mention: the Corn Refiners Association and Sugar Association successfully lobbied Bush to pressure the World Health Organization to de-emphasize the importance of cutting sweets and eating fruits and vegetables in their anti-obesity guidelines. Two scientists were ejected from the bioethics council due to what they believed to be their views favoring embryo research.

Nothing is so trivial that it escapes top administration advisor Karl Rove's insistence on staying "on message"- from forbidding NASA scientists to speak about the global warming disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow, to letting National Park Service Gift shops sell books with the "alternative view" that the Grand Canyon was formed in seven days.

Such distortions seem always to be in the service of a crusade of true belief. Unquestionably Bush is a man of conviction. The problem is that Bush does not seem to arrive at these convictions through faulty human pursuits like science. He seems to suppose his knowledge comes from a higher power.

In the book The Price of Loyalty, Pulitzer Prize winning author Ron Suskind records former Treasury of Secretary Paul O'Neill's view that Bush based his decisions on "instinct" and left others to "ponder the intagibles that [drive] the president- from some sweeping, unspoken notion of how the world works; to a one-size-fits-all principle, such as 'I won't negotiate with myself;' to squabble with a family member over breakfast." Former Bush terrorism czar Richard Clarke paints a similiar picture of the White House staff inclined to ignore facts in favor of having truth "revealed" to them. Bush's own wife says, "George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action." Bush seems to value gut instinct over evidence, faith over fact, conviction over reality. He doesn't need science to know that our food is safe, that the Earth was created in seven days, or that Saddam Hussein was only seconds away from handing over nukes to Al Qaeda. If studies say otherwise then agencies have to be reorganized, committeers reshuffled, and the data reinterpreted until they get it right.

I think I need to recheck my adress now, I thought I was living in the US, turns out I might be in Soviet Russia.


The rest can be seen in the latest issue of Skeptic (Volume 11, No.2 2004).

 

[Cleon]

It's not just Shermer's group; most folks I've run into in the organized Skeptic's movement are fairly liberal.

I mean, look at CSICOP; it's part of the Center for Inquiry, Kurt'z bridge between skepticism and secular humanism, an avowedly liberal political and social philosophy.

 

[hgc]

Skeptics are traitors. And perverts.

 

[steinhenge]

Skeptic has the article online here .

I'll let Dylan know that you're discussing this here so if you have any questions/criticisms for him, I'm sure he'd love to hear them.

 

[a_unique_person]

Politics is the cutting edge of scepticism. I think that attacking these issues head on is essential. Sylia and co, while good targets of attack, are essentially pretty harmless. Twisting science to conform to political beliefs is akin to Stalins abuse of science. It put Russian agriculture back many years, for example.

 

[SezMe]

I mean, look at CSICOP; it's part of the Center for Inquiry, Kurt'z bridge between skepticism and secular humanism, an avowedly liberal political and social philosophy.

Cleon, can you provide links or quotes to back up the "avowedly" assertion?

Thanks.

 

[kalen]

A skeptical attitude should not be limited to paranormal claims. A little skepticism is healthy when you hear claims from:

Advertisers
PR people
Politicians (except Bush and company)
The Media
Terrorists
Doctors
Dentists
The Government
The Accused
The Accuser
Yo' Momma
Corporations
Teachers
Books
The Internet

and, of course,

Anyone on the JREF forums.