Comments on: Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts

Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts

Postroad — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:50:31 -0800

Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.--would you believe the scientists or the people's (almost) choice? May need free reg for NY Times.

By: Keyser Soze

Keyser Soze — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:54:22 -0800

Screw that! All Nobel laureates are democrats, so I will force myself to not acknowledge this. It's like my mom says, "I like George Bush. He does great things for this country." "Like what?" "Go wash the dishes, Keyser Soze!"

By: Keyser Soze

Keyser Soze — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:56:39 -0800

Link to article that doesnt require registration. Courtesy of the NY times link generator.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:02:34 -0800

The article for me reads: politicalization makes things crappy. Then it reminds me, science is not perfect. As, time after time science has told us, "it's bad for you", only to refute it years later.

By: RylandDotNet

RylandDotNet — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:03:28 -0800

A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said today he had not seen the text of the scientists' accusations. "But I can assure you that this is an administration that makes decisions based on the best available science," he said. "Best" meaning "most likely to support policy we've already decided on," presumably. Kinda like they make military decisions based on the best available intelligence data.

By: RylandDotNet

RylandDotNet — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:05:07 -0800

BTW, Thanks for the NYT link thing, Keyser, good find.

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:05:40 -0800

A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said today he had not seen the text of the scientists' accusations. "But I can assure you that this is an administration that makes decisions based on the best available science," he said. In other words, "I haven't seen it, but I can tell you it's wrong." Way to reinforce the whole point of the report, Scott.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:07:00 -0800

Add, time after time = usually intial studies, so not knocking science. Know chemical engineers when their degree was obtained, their chemistry education was equal to today's jr high chemistry level.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:08:01 -0800

I hope the scientists gave better concrete and specific examples of what the heck they are referring to than this shallow one pager from the times. Anyone got any links to the report or a more in depth article. (PS-Postroad, not knocking you, thanks for the article, just knocking the author's lack of depth in reporting)

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:12:53 -0800

I'm reminded of the alleged comment, from one of the members of the National Academy of Science panel asked, in the first few months of the Bush Administration, to reasess Global Warming and prepare a report for the White House. "Where the hell have these guys been for the past decade?", quipped the panelist - in reference to the apparent ignorance of the Bush Administration of the previous ten year's research on Climate Change. Faith Based Politics.

By: aeschenkarnos

aeschenkarnos — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:19:13 -0800

The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents I call bullshit. This action has a political motive: the group aims to get rid of Bush. Any action that has an effect that is known in advance becomes a motive of sorts, even if it is blithely ignored. "Political motives" can be good or evil or neither. I think theirs is a very, very good motive--imposition of the scientific method onto public policy formulation is one of my favorite ideological goals--but it is still political.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:20:28 -0800

Union of Concerned Scientists currently choking under server load. UCS Action Site

By: fold_and_mutilate

fold_and_mutilate — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:20:36 -0800

I hope the scientists gave better concrete and specific examples of what the heck they are referring to than this shallow one pager from the times. Try this, Pollomacho (site seems kind of slow at present): However, actions by the Bush administration threaten to undermine this legacy, and as a result, policy decisions are being made that have serious consequences for our health, safety, and environment. Across a broad range of issues—from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear weapons—the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions; and undermining the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominating non-experts or underqualified individuals from outside the scientific mainstream or with industry ties; as well as disbanding science advisory committees altogether.

By: jmgorman

jmgorman — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:28:44 -0800

Faith Based Science

By: Slothrup

Slothrup — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:49:51 -0800

Why do you hate America so much?

By: maggie

maggie — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:56:54 -0800

Well I had a long post and then, mysteriously, cyberspace ate it and I got a very strange error message. Damn you Ashcroft! Here's another long post! Sorry! I am a ~pause~ scientist. I do primary research in some of the areas that the EPA covers. I can tell you first hand that the pressure over the last few years has been tremendous and many, many people have resigned. This is an example. There are large sections that were present in earlier drafts that are missing from the final version (for those who point out that it's still a "draft", all these documents are. They are re-written every few years and there is no "Final" version). Christine Todd Whitman even resigned, and she ain't exactly a tree-hugger. The media are generally not a scientists friend. Most reporting on scientific issues is shoddy at best. I have been in situations firsthand that are later reported in the national media and it's generally an Alice-through-the-looking-glass experience. I can't tell you the number of time a journalist has approached me in a bar or other social setting looking for info. And I am very small fish indeed. Consequently most researchers hate talking to the media. Getting some Big Names together with what looks like a professional PR team was a good move IMHO. Already it has generated more controversy than 25 top level gov't scientists resigning in protest. $10 this will be in Newsweek within a month.

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:57:17 -0800

this from a friend who watches a little too much fox television when i called his attention this report: "Ask the citizens of Germany if they trusted Doctor Mengele......" hahaha... jeezus.

By: plemeljr

plemeljr — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:02:22 -0800

Here is the UCS Press Release and a direct link to the full report but site is very slow, and I am trying to download it and mirror the .pdf. Here is a mirror [be kind - 650k .pdf] I don't have a torrent open at work, so this is the best I can do.

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:13:21 -0800

"Know chemical engineers when their degree was obtained their chemistry education was equal to today's jr high chemistry level" Bullshit. Straight up. There is no accredited engineering school that would give you a chem eng degree without putting you through enough chemistry to bring your average valedictorian to their knees.

By: Durwood

Durwood — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:35:57 -0800

Hmmm....the New York Times prints an article about some scientists critical of President Bush. What liberal media?

By: Slothrup

Slothrup — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:50:49 -0800

Ask the citizens of Germany if they trusted Doctor Mengele See, because unlike the US, Nazi Germany had political leadership it could trust.

By: JDC8

JDC8 — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:12:49 -0800

Politics and Science has a good, in-depth review of the relationship between science and the current administration.

By: kablam

kablam — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:58:32 -0800

What is good science may not be good policy. For example, cigarettes and alcohol are bad for you; therefore they must be prohibited. Coffee, too. Maybe. But even within that statement there are provisos. For example, 1 in 4 smokers will develop some smoking related disease, such as cancer and heart disease. However, 3 in 4 will not. But scientifically, it should be banned anyway--there is no logical reason to smoke. Take this a step further: though it is suspected by some that the MMR vaccination may cause autism in a small number of children, health authorities are universal in their support for a *single* vaccination, instead of possibly safer multiple vaccinations. And, some tacitly admit, even *if* MMR causes a few cases of autism. Why? A numbers game. If they stop using MMR, or try three different shots, the number of children who evade inoculation skyrockets, and the horrible diseases strike them down in the thousands. So what is the good science, here? Banning MMR or just pretending that there is no problem that *may* be caused by MMR? Once again, science folds before good public policy--that even scientists agree on. Other things that pop into mind where public policy trumps good science: 55 MPH speed limits. Legal medicinal herbs. Gun control. (Both sides.) Abortion. Marijuana. etc. I'm sure you all can think of a bunch.

By: aaronscool

aaronscool — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:34:02 -0800

This action has a political motive: the group aims to get rid of Bush I wouldn't agree with this statement at all. Yes I think there is a political message to this which is: "Keep politics out of science". There are several Republicans (Having worked directly for previous Republican Administrations) on this list. I don't think this is an outright call to get rid of Bush. Hmmm....the New York Times prints an article about some scientists critical of President Bush. What liberal media? Um, Yeah. What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Is the article factually incorrect? Does it appear to prejudge any party involved in the story? Just cause you don't like what people are saying doesn't make it legitimate news. Don't worry though you can keep waving the Liberal Media flag cause lord knows repetition makes something true

By: humbe

humbe — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:05:03 -0800

Durwood: so just because the NYT prints it you automatically disregard it? How about USA Today, or Washington Post? They're not exactly known for their liberal bent.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:17:02 -0800

Take this a step further: though it is suspected by some that the MMR vaccination may cause autism in a small number of children, health authorities are universal in their support for a *single* vaccination, instead of possibly safer multiple vaccinations. And, some tacitly admit, even *if* MMR causes a few cases of autism. MMR vaccination may cause autism... No, autism was linked to not to the vaccines but the mercury containing presevative thimerosal, which is no longer found in MMR vaccines.. The CDC recently published a study saying there was no link between thimerosal and autism but.... Critics say the CDC itself may have undermined confidence in vaccine safety with a study published last November that found no consistent link between mercury in vaccines and autism. The study, based on a review of records from three health maintenance organizations, found only scattered evidence of an increased risk of tics and speech delays -- but not autism -- for children exposed to thimerosal. The study called for further investigation. But SafeMinds, an advocacy group, obtained the transcript of a meeting in July 2000 in which study authors and advisers discussed preliminary findings that indicated the risk of autism was 2 1/2 times greater among children who received the highest levels of thimerosal compared with those who received none. "I do not want [my] grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on," said Richard Johnston, a pediatrics professor at the University of Colorado, according to the transcript. So, behind the so-called MMR controversy is apparently yet another case of political science after all. Rising mercury levels in fish are another possible contributor to the explosion in reported cases of autism. (As the link above notes, by the way, One study of British general practitioners' records by James Kaye, an epidemiologist from Boston University, found that the number of autism diagnoses rose seven-fold between 1988 and 1999. That is a bit more than a few cases of autism. ) Mercury is working its way up the food chain and the highest concentrations are found in the top predators. In the Arctic, for example, that would be humans and polar bears. It seems likely we're going to be hearing a lot more about enviromental mercury very soon-- ...or not, depending upon the politics of science.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:29:20 -0800

White House quietly shelves MTBE ban

By: maggie

maggie — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:14:00 -0800

What is good science may not be good policy. For example, cigarettes and alcohol are bad for you; therefore they must be prohibited. Coffee, too. Maybe. Actually, most scientists aren't really into banning shit. That would be the politicans. That is a common misconception, but still frustrating.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:55:32 -0800

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us