WP: President's Science Policy Questioned

[dennis4868]

In two independent reports released yesterday, groups of prestigious scientists raised concerns about the role of politics in the formulation of Bush administration science policy and urged greater oversight by independent organizations.

A National Research Council report praised the administration for its revised climate-change research plan, but it questioned whether new initiatives would receive adequate funding and warned that participation of political appointees in the program could cause it "to be influenced by political considerations."

"Having high-level administration officials in management is a double-edged sword," Anthony C. Janetos, an NRC committee member and senior fellow at the Washington-based H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, said in a telephone news conference. "It's positive because scientists are talking to people that make decisions and create funding, but it creates a challenge in maintaining scientific independence and credibility."

more here....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53137-2004Feb18.html

What, the Bush administration is systematically suppressing and distorting scientific information to further its political goals? No, not this White House. They would never do such a thing!

[JoePizz]

1. I think they call it "Faith Based Science"

It's much more flexible than regular science. No pesky laws of thermodynamics to worry about.

[emulatorloo]

2. More verification of Price of Loyality - all decisions driven by ideology

rather than research and fact. It is really disgusting.

[tuckdogg]

3. Those evil scientists!

What the hell do they know? They strut around all the time, waving their advanced degrees and years of experience around like they actually mean something. How dare they question the integrity of his majes...erm...the Govern...erm...the "President's" faith-based science policies! This is the man that God himself ordered to strike Iraq! Is there little doubt that God also informed him that he was to ignore any evidence that his policies were wrong, costly, and in some cases downright dangerous to the rest of the world?

Christ, next thing you evil fanatics and your statistics and empirical evidence are going to claim is that Congress has been making the same complaint! Oh, wait...

[newyawker99]

7. Hi tuckdogg!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Read what the Union of Concerned Scientists...

has to say about all this.

http://www.ucsusa.org/

The UCS report was mentioned in today's fishwrap under a Reuters byline. Quoted were EPA and other types from even Nixon's days who said they never, EVER, got "guidance" on scientific matters from the White House.

Until Shrub, that is.

[Cheesehead]

5. When the facts don't support the policy what do you change?

The facts (science) obviously. How dare the Union of Concerned Scientists object to the administration's supressing and distorting the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy.

Focus people, we have to stay on course here regardless of the facts.

{/sarcasm} :wtf:

[kodi]

6. lysenkoism. there is nothing worse in science

.

[maggrwaggr]

8. WH response: these people are "conspiracy theorists"

no kidding. heard it today on NPR while out driving around.

If you don't swallow the administration's lies, you are a conspiracy theorist.

[mstrsplinter326]

9. Bush's strategery:

A dangerous plan is better than no plan.