The Republican War on Science

[Grammatron]

It is perfectly possible (even probable) that democratic science policy wasn't very good. But that is relevant to this discussion only as a basis for comparison, to maybe say that things went from bad to worse. Bad democratic policies don't excuse bad republican policies. Tu quoque arguments easily and quickly turn any discussion of US politics into exercises in partisan hackery. I wish people on both sides would restrain from using them.

Then why trivialize this with pointless lables like "Republican" or "Democrat" when we can just say government.

It's just like Jocko said, on one hand you're posting that we should tu quoque this and partisan politics is dumb, on the other you're just focusing on Republican. Who about their party affiliation?

As long as we continue to mix politics with research and science, politicians will play with it to suit their needs, just the way things are.

 

[Jocko]

Read my post again, I made a few changes to it. Those changes were done before I read your "comment".

You know something Jocko? As you well know (after all, it seems you loath canadians), I'm not american. I have no interest and little use in democratic vs. republican squabbles. And I don't much care about schmiberals. If the present administration was democratic, I would probably be bitching about them too.

Most of the most strident critics aren't Americans, either. AUP, Kevin, Claus, etc. all share a bizarre preoccupation with the machinations of the American political machine. Citizenzhip means precious little when it comes to each of our favorite topics, me included.

And I have no problem with Canadians. I'm a huuuuge Bill Shatner fan.

 

[Orwell]

Then why trivialize this with pointless lables like "Republican" or "Democrat" when we can just say government.

It's just like Jocko said, on one hand you're posting that we should tu quoque this and partisan politics is dumb, on the other you're just focusing on Republican. Who about their party affiliation?

As long as we continue to mix politics with research and science, politicians will play with it to suit their needs, just the way things are.

I usually say "Bush administration" or even "US gov.". As it is implicit in my first post, I don't think that conservatives have to agree with the Bush administration. I used republican and democratic because that's how the thread was going.

 

[Cain]

An excellent review of the Mooney's book is up on Crooked Timber:

http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/#more-3722

Here's the first paragraph, which is kind of bland. The last paragraph most closely applies to people on this board:

Books about the politics of science policy and other complicated policy areas have a hard time doing justice to the politics and the technical aspects both; they usually emphasize one and underplay the other. On the one hand, many journalistic accounts ham up the politics, and underplay the analysis, documenting the atrocities, one after another after another. Raw outrage supported by anecdotes gets partisans’ juices flowing, but it’s not likely to persuade the unpersuaded, or provide any good understanding of how to solve the problem (other than to kick the bums out, which is a start, but only a start). On the other, there are books that do an excellent job of discussing the underlying policy issues, but that lack political zing. Marion Nestle’s Food Politics is a good example; it provides a nuanced (and utterly damning) account of how the technical processes of food regulation have been corrupted by special interests, but it’s written by a policy wonk for policy wonks. There’s lots and lots of technical nitty gritty. The good news is that Chris Mooney’s book pulls off the difficult double act of talking about the politics in a fresh and immediate fashion while paying attention to the underlying issues of institutions and policies, and does it with considerable aplomb. The Republican War on Science is written with an eye for a good story, but it still has a real intellectual punch. There’s an underlying argument as to why the relationship between science and politics is in a parlous state. While I think that there’s an interesting piece missing from this argument (on which more below), it links the very different issues of science politics under the current administration (regulation, intelligent design, global warming, stem cell research) into a more-or-less coherent narrative.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Static Engine[/i]Oh yes, I've been to Bremerton many a time.

I think I can see sarcasm dripping from that line (but perhaps I am too sensitive.) Haven't you heard of the Bremerton revitalization? Our motto is "Visit the new Bremerton, it's not s***hole any more." Actually it is not a bad place to commute to Seattle from. Housing is cheap and it really has changed for the better. The biggest problem is the schools are still awful. I have two years to figure out what to do about that part of it.

In any case, I really do suggest the Town Hall science lectures. We are such geeks, that my wife and I go to them for our "date" night. To give us a little credit, we have a few beers afterwards.

CBL

 

[Grammatron]

I usually say "Bush administration" or even "US gov.". As it is implicit in my first post, I don't think that conservatives have to agree with the Bush administration. I used republican and democratic because that's how the thread was going.

So far I don't see Bush's administration that different on science than Clinton's. Yes there's that ID nonesence -- which if you consider Gore was also part of Clinton's administration -- but beyond that it's all the same. People just seem to care more if the evil Bush is involved.

 

[Orwell]

Most of the most strident critics aren't Americans, either. AUP, Kevin, Claus, etc. all share a bizarre preoccupation with the machinations of the American political machine. Citizenzhip means precious little when it comes to each of our favorite topics, me included.

It is pretty hard to avoid talking about US policy: this forum filled with americans discussing it. If you guys talked a bit more often about Canadian politics, you would probably hear me bitch about Canadian politics too. I am an equal opportunity cynic.

And I have no problem with Canadians. I'm a huuuuge Bill Shatner fan.

...as they are - and should be - on every list they appear on.

I proudly declare my unreasonable loathing for Canadians. If only those with unreasonable loathing for Americans could be so honest, this forum could save a lot of space.

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...age=40&highlight=loath canadians&pagenumber=2

 

[Orwell]

So far I don't see Bush's administration that different on science than Clinton's. Yes there's that ID nonesence -- which if you consider Gore was also part of Clinton's administration -- but beyond that it's all the same. People just seem to care more if the evil Bush is involved.

I don't agree with you. For instance, as far as I know, the Clinton administration (like other administrations before) limited itself to ignoring scientific recommendations, without interfering with the research itself. The Bush administration has been accused by many scientists of both ignoring scientific research and manipulating it to its own needs. As far as I am aware, the Clinton administration never was accused of doing this. This is a new development.

When a leading psychologist like Harvard's Howard Gardner calls the president's science adviser a "prostitute," it's a safe bet that all is not well in the realm of government science policy. Indeed, in the past month, the United States has been engulfed by a kind of "science war," one pitting much of the nation's scientific community against the current administration. Led by twenty Nobel laureates, the scientists say Bush's government has systematically distorted and undermined scientific information in pursuit of political objectives. Examples include the suppression and censorship of reports on subjects like climate change and mercury pollution, the stacking of scientific advisory panels, and the suspicious removal of scientific information from government Web sites.

That's from a csicop article, by the way.

 

[Grammatron]

I don't agree with you. For instance, as far as I know, the Clinton administration (like other administrations before) limited itself to ignoring scientific recommendations, without interfering with the research itself. The Bush administration has been accused by many scientists of both ignoring scientific research and manipulating it to its own needs. As far as I am aware, the Clinton administration never was accused of doing this. This is a new development.

That's from a csicop article, by the way.

Yes a brilliant and elloquent retort from a Harvard professor, "prostitute." Bravo, he certainly have displayes superior intellect there

The fact Nobel laureates disagree means little to me since the Nobel prize is awarded in so many different and sometimes not-very-science-related categories that it practically screams argument from authority.

 

[corplinx]

War on Science. Day 428. New nanotech advances at MIT mark the possible development of fog-free lenses and glass. The Bush administration fired back by not giving government money for stem cell research. Science waved the white flag of surrender.

What I can't fathom is why you hippies and commies who hate the phrase "war on terror" get on to me about saying "war on science" is hyperbole.

I don't think anyone on this forum is 100 percent happy with the Bush admin's science policies. We just aren't crying "the sky is falling".

 

[Orwell]

Yes a brilliant and elloquent retort from a Harvard professor, "prostitute." Bravo, he certainly have displayes superior intellect there

He's obviously pissed off. Is that wrong?

The fact Nobel laureates disagree means little to me since the Nobel prize is awarded in so many different and sometimes not-very-science-related categories that it practically screams argument from authority.

Grammatron, you talk like if all arguments from authority were automatically fallacies.

Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority

The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity.
The judgement must be within the authority's field of competence.
The authority must be interpreted correctly.
Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle.
The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious beliefs). This is why appealing to one's own authority is always illegitimate.
The judgement must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample).
A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Do you think that all of these Nobel prizes (plus a bunch of other scientists) fall outside of this list?

 

[Orwell]

War on Science. Day 428. New nanotech advances at MIT mark the possible development of fog-free lenses and glass. The Bush administration fired back by not giving government money for stem cell research. Science waved the white flag of surrender.

What I can't fathom is why you hippies and commies who hate the phrase "war on terror" get on to me about saying "war on science" is hyperbole.

I don't think anyone on this forum is 100 percent happy with the Bush admin's science policies. We just aren't crying "the sky is falling".

Do I sound like I'm saying "the sky is falling"? Fortunately, quite a lot of science is done independently of political considerations. But in those cases were politics are closely related with science, a considerable number of scientists have accused the Bush administration of putting ideology before science.

 

[Grammatron]

He's obviously pissed off. Is that wrong?

Grammatron, you talk like if all arguments from authority were automatically fallacies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Do you think that all of these Nobel prizes (plus a bunch of other scientists) fall outside of this list?

No but looking at the list it seems a good chunk of the nobel lauriets are physicists, yet most of the concerns raised have little to do with physist, such as Environment regulations, abortion, HIV studies and endengered species.

 

[Jocko]

It is pretty hard to avoid talking about US policy: this forum filled with americans discussing it. If you guys talked a bit more often about Canadian politics, you would probably hear me bitch about Canadian politics too. I am an equal opportunity cynic.

Good for you. It's important to have a hobby.

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...age=40&highlight=loath canadians&pagenumber=2

Apparently your hobbies don't extend to humor or the correct execution of smilies. But what else could I expect from a silly canuck? *

* "Smilies" such as the one used above often denote sarcasm or otherwise tongue-in-cheek content. They are useful because internet communication lacks the nuance and tone of spoken communication.

 

[StaticEngine]

I think I can see sarcasm dripping from that line

My wife and I have friends who live in Bremerton who throw quite wild parties, so that's my association with this fine Navy Town.

I'll check out the Hall Series, for sure.

 

[a_unique_person]

Most of the most strident critics aren't Americans, either. AUP, Kevin, Claus, etc. all share a bizarre preoccupation with the machinations of the American political machine. Citizenzhip means precious little when it comes to each of our favorite topics, me included.

And I have no problem with Canadians. I'm a huuuuge Bill Shatner fan.

The US is setting the anti-science agenda for much of the world, AGW is affecting the whole world.

One minute, I read here how the US is the worlds lone superpower, and it'll do what it pleases, the next you are *** off if I point that out when it affects the rest of us.

 

[Hutch]

Gentlemen (and any ladies whom I might have missed) you are chasing shadows.

The best query is "Has the Government significantly reduced funding for Basic Research (outside the Department of Defense) in the past few years?

I would say that would be a significant sign of "A War on Science", in that Basic reseach (the "I wonder if I did this what would happen"), that often was ridiculed by some Senator (his name escapes me right now) is the cornerstone to any vibrant and evolving technological society.

IMHO

So off you go lads! I would join in the fray, but have to depart for Cairo, Egypt in about 14 hours so you'll have to do the dirty work without me...

 

[corplinx]

Some jack-booted thugs just broke into my lab, removed all my beakers and burners. The war is real! Someone take this message to Obi-wan!

 

[Orwell]

Good for you. It's important to have a hobby.



Apparently your hobbies don't extend to humor or the correct execution of smilies. But what else could I expect from a silly canuck? *

* "Smilies" such as the one used above often denote sarcasm or otherwise tongue-in-cheek content. They are useful because internet communication lacks the nuance and tone of spoken communication.

Humour eh? Let's try a little exercise:

Originally posted by Jocko
...as they are - and should be - on every list they appear on.

I proudly declare my unreasonable loathing for African Americans. If only those with unreasonable loathing for Americans could be so honest, this forum could save a lot of space.

Originally posted by Jocko
...as they are - and should be - on every list they appear on.

I proudly declare my unreasonable loathing for Jews. If only those with unreasonable loathing for Americans could be so honest, this forum could save a lot of space.

Aren't these jokes about loathing entire groups of people according to something they didn't get to choose hilarious?

How do you like my sense of humour now, Jocko?

 

[Orwell]

No but looking at the list it seems a good chunk of the nobel lauriets are physicists, yet most of the concerns raised have little to do with physist, such as Environment regulations, abortion, HIV studies and endengered species.

Are they? What makes you think that? And what about all the other scientists complaining?

More than 60 of the nation's top scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, and former federal agency directors, as well as university chairs and presidents, issued a statement Wednesday calling for regulatory and legislative action to "restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking."

http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/79763/1/

Do you want me to dig out the numerous articles on this subject that are floating around the net?

By the way, the Scientific American mag (amongst others) has been reporting these kinds of complaints ever since the Bush administration too over.