The Politicization Of Science in the Bush Administration

[Memekiller]

The latest issue of Skeptic Magazine that takes Bush to task for his abuse of science:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic10-08-04.html


The Politicization Of Science in the Bush Administration: Science-As-Public Relations
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 prestige, 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, Marianne Horinko, Rich Biondi, 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 Russell Train, who worked for both Nixon and Ford, wrote, “I can state categorically that there never was such White House intrusion into the business of the EPA during my tenure.” 1 Government meddling has reached such a level that European scientists are voicing concerns that Bush may not merely be undermining U.S. dominance in sciences, but global research as well. 2

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Finally!

Just when I was beginning to despair that the Skep community had given itself over whole-hog to internet flame-fights, public taunting of astrologers and UFO contactees, and the jolly-time economic propaganda of John Stossel, Michael Shermer (publisher of Skeptic) sets his sights on a real problem created by pseudoscience.

I'm a critic of the Skep movement in general, but this development calls for the Slaying the Fatted Calf. Three cheers (none of them of the Bronx variety)!

--bkl

[Memekiller]

2. Couldn't agree more...

It's easy to make fun of UFOs, but political bias is something skeptics themselves are susceptible to. That's why they don't like to think about it.

[Rich Hunt]

3. nonsense

Everyone is "susceptible" to political bias.

...but it would be typical of an anti-skeptic to make a generalization about a group of people. What a spectacularly nonsensical statement.

Skeptics have a variety of political affiliations. Some don't like labels. Some are libertarians, some are liberals, and some have more radical beliefs.

Personally, I loathe how libertarians co-opt the language of reason and science, when their economic theories are wholly idealistic rather than empirical. Intellectually, they begin with what they would like to be so (Ayn Rand had it right - they are really romantics), instead of building from observation. No political camp is without its unquestioning loyalists, however.

I don't trust any 'skeptic' who is committed to a single political philosophy. But what exactly is your problem with skepticism? There is nothing 'conservative' about it. Authoritarians are the ones who exploit superstition and fear.

I'm really glad Skeptic took on Bush, because it is the honest thing to do. You should see the letters. They really pissed off a lot of the phony 'skeptics' who just like the idea of being 'scientific' because it makes them feel 'tough' or something.

Michael Shermer had some great things to say about the "Ayn Rand Cult", too.

[Memekiller]

4. I agree with everything you're saying...

I'm a skeptic myself. My only point is that it's easy to make fun of other people, but because politics is a bias skeptics themselves are susceptible to (case and point, Libertarians), they don't talk about issues like the politicization of science by politicians - that is, if they agree with them.