Scientists complain about Bush policies

[Kadie]

Scientists complain about Bush policies


By JOAN LOWY, Scripps Howard News Service


Last Updated: July 12, 2004, 03:11:00 PM PDT


(SH) - The Bush administration is using a variety of methods to suppress scientific research, information and viewpoints that are unfavorable to industry, speakers at a national conference on scientific integrity said Monday.

Scientific research and regulation related to the environment and public health is also being undermined by an aggressive effort by corporate interests to challenge scientific information, even when that information represents a clear consensus of scientific opinion, scientists and public health advocates said.

"Within the scientific community the effects of the administration's (actions) have been chilling and demoralizing," Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., a clinical psychologist and former university professor, told the conference, sponsored by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a public advocacy group.

"Researchers are practicing self-censorship or avoiding government careers entirely," Baird said. "Lifetimes of study are being abandoned, international collaborations are being curtailed, studies and data that could lead to valuable life-saving information are being neglected or blocked ... and some of the best scientific talent in the world is starting to leave our country."

more... http://www.modbee.com/24hour/politics/story/1489521p-8947578c.html

Check this part out at the end of the article:
Some other recent controversies cited at the conference:

[patrice]

1. All in the name of "States' Rights"

They're such hypocrits on this issue. "The states should decide what to do." Except when "we" say so, like when we want to go to war, or if it involves something that isn't PC, like pot or gay marriage.

And on the philosophical issues here : Authority vs. Autonomy. I DO place real value in Autonomy (individual or state or whatever), but anyone who has raised a child knows that Autonomy needs a foil to develop functionality. The states need clear federal leadership in order to define their own way on the issues. The U.S. government can't lead anyone if it doesn't respect rational empiricism, a.k.a. Science.

[TheWesson]

2. The New Republic: "The Closing of the Presidential Mind"

Case against President Bush part I:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040705&s=foer070504

If you're not a subscriber, here's the kernel paragraphs:

>In nearly every corner of the administration, examples of this derisive attitude toward experts abound. Bush has stripped the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy of his title "assistant to the president"--a migration down the organizational flow chart that requires him to report through White House aides rather than to the president himself. The Bushies have evicted the Council of Economic Advisers, an office renowned for its nonpartisan calculations, from the White House complex--a relocation that The Washington Post described as the "political equivalent of being sent to Elba." And those are just the symbolic shots. Seemingly everyday, newspapers run stories about experts whose opinions have been either ignored or stifled. Last year, Medicare chief Thomas Scully reportedly threatened to fire one of his agency's actuaries if he provided Congress with accurate estimates of the cost of the administration's prescription-drug benefit. When the administration planned to loosen the regulation of mercury emissions from power plants last year, it never consulted Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) experts. "E.P.A. staffers say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order," according to the Los Angeles Times. And, in May, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) overruled the recommendation of a scientific advisory panel that had reviewed 40 studies and 15,000 pages of data, refusing to permit over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill.

>The most common explanation for this animus is that the White House overflows with political hacks uninterested in the nitty-gritty of policy. But the administration's expert-bashing also has deep roots in ideology. Since its inception, modern American conservatism has harbored a suspicion of experts, who, through adherence to inductive reasoning and academic methodologies, claim to provide objective research and analysis. To be sure, this social-scientific approach has its limits. Conservatives have raised genuinely troubling questions about its predilection for downplaying the role of "culture" and "values" in shaping human behavior. But the Bush administration has adopted a far more extreme version of this critique: It takes the radically postmodern view that "science," "objectivity," and "truth" are guises for an ulterior, leftist agenda; that experts are so incapable of dispassionate and disinterested analysis that their work doesn't even merit a hearing. And the results have been disastrous.

the wesson

The Bushies also bought disaster by not listening to experts on questions about Iraq WMD ... for example, the famous 'aluminum tubes' said to be destined for uranium centrifuges were described by nuclear experts as certainly not being clearly destined for centrifuges.

aluminum tubes:
http://webexhibits.org/bush/9.html

Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://webexhibits.org/bush/index.html

and of course we all know what happened to the analysts at the CIA - their data was re-routed through the OSP to produce more condign policy recommendations.

[struggle4progress]

3. kick

:kick:

[Kinkistyle]

4. Evolutionary Miracle: TALKING CHIMP IN WHITE HOUSE! News at 11. n/t

[Placebo]

5. Another GREAT Article...

http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=kennedy