-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:48:18 +0100 From: Charles Arthur, The Independent <carthur@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <4091D902.4050704@private> Hi Declan... At 12:41 am -0400 on 30/4/04, you wrote: >It is not unthinkable that scientists have political biases. In fact, it >would be remarkable if many were not lifelong Democrats who may be >tempted to be a bit more critical of a Republican's science policies >than they would, say, a Bill Clinton's. Moreover, many scientists rely >on government funding of domestic programs, which arguably increases >faster under Democratic regimes. I'm sorry, Declan, but that is a really *disgraceful* comment to put above an article which is not arguing for "more funding" and which is not about political points, but about how well *science* is served by an administration - and how well an administration treats the independent science provided to it. Look at just a couple of the details, because the editorial is scathing in its entirety. > In February his White House >received failing marks in a statement signed by 62 leading scientists, >including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of >Science, and advisers to the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. Both Republican presidents, by the way. >The administration misrepresented... [snipped; in the original email. A >very depressing list of misrepresented science.] >... Blind loyalists to the president will dismiss the UCS >report because that organization often tilts left--never mind that some of >those signatories are conservatives. They may brush off this magazine's >reproofs the same way, as well as the regular salvos launched by California >Representative Henry A. Waxman of the House Government Reform Committee >[see Insights, on page 52] and maybe even Arizona Senator John McCain's >scrutiny for the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. But it >is increasingly impossible to ignore that this White House disdains >research that inconveniences it. That last is the kicker. Scientists get really uncomfortable when they find themselves arguing against the facts; they change their worldview instead. A decade or so ago, there was a lot of thinking that climate change would lead to a new ice age. The studies showed that was wrong. The studies weren't discarded - instead, the idea of the coming ice age was. George Monbiot, with whom I don't always agree, wrote a terrific piece about climate change scepticism recently (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1204194,00.html). More generally, I'd say this about the scientists I've spoken to and read over the years: they're pretty indifferent to politics and politicians, except where those politicians try to influence the disinterested practice of science. And especially if those politicians ignore good science in favour of their own preferences, religious or otherwise. David King, the chief scientific adviser to the British government, has repeatedly said that "Climate change is a greater threat than terrorism": he said it at the AAAS meeting, in Science magazine, and more recently here. But I bet you won't hear George Bush acknowledging that. Terrorism is sudden, and right here and now. Climate change is gradual, but also here and now. It's much easier to demonise terrorists, though, than ourselves. best Charles -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Independent newspaper on the Web: http://www.independent.co.uk/ It's even better on paper -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:39:04 -0700 From: dano <dano@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <4091D902.4050704@private> The problem is not only that this administration chooses the science and scientists that it wants to promote its agenda, but also that it is slowing down science in this country by excluding qualified scientists and graduate students (the common laborers that do much academic science) or severely impeding their entry into the country. If this continues, it will serve to slow down new science in this country while helping science to accelerate in other countries. A current IHT has an article from a recent Boston Globe: <http://www.iht.com/articles/517770.html> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 21:42:12 -0700 From: R <rhisiart@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <4091D902.4050704@private> dear Declan: I'm not sure I'd characterize Bush's "science policies" as Republican. They're much more protestant religious fundamentalism than Republican. Rich -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 23:38:16 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>, gnu@private When discussing biased science, don't forget Alan Leshner, the former head of the the National Institute on Drug Abuse (www.nida.nih.gov), a U.S. agency well criticized for only funding studies that look for harmful effects (rather than beneficial effects) from politically-disfavored substances. Leshner sent millions of tax dollars to Prof. George Ricaurte, whose research on MDMA (Ecstacy) was so egregious that ordinary members of the public were able to point out that his results were totally fabricated. (His last paper claimed that taking a single dose of Ecstacy could bring on Parkinson's Disease -- though millions of humans have taken Ecstacy without any big upswing in Parkinson's.) However, his paper had made it all the way through the scientific review process, was published in the journal "Science", and was then used to influence Congress to pass new penalties on Ecstacy users. After public outcry, Ricaurte eventually tried to reproduce his own results with a different set of lab animals, failed, and lamely blamed the problem on a mislabeled vial of "speed" that was "somehow" used in his original experiment. He was forced to publicly retract his paper. (Leshner and Ricaurte are also the pair who brought you the false "Ecstacy causes holes in your brain" study and publicity.) Here's a good overview of the situation: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_research2.shtml Leshner has slipped out of public employment, into a cushy job elsewhere. Where might this paragon of scientific integrity be now? He's President of AAAS, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The publisher of "Science"...the journal of politically biased papers. Our NIDA "science" bureacracy is in full spin-control mode about Ecstacy now, under its new Director, Nora Volkow, MD. In their latest Ecstacy report, she says: The so-called "club drug" MDMA continues to be used by millions of Americans across the country despite growing evidence of its potential harmful effects. 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, or "Ecstasy") has gained a deceptive reputation as a "safe" drug among its users. Clearly, our anti-drug "scientists" want us to believe that ten million US Ecstacy users continue to take a substance that hurts them, for no obvious reason. They aren't showing up in emergency rooms after taking it, either. The idea that perhaps this substance is doing these people some good, otherwise they wouldn't take it, doesn't seem to resonate with the "scientific search for truth" as conducted by the Bush Admin. John Gilmore -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:31:15 -0700 From: Kimberly Allen <kimall@private> Reply-To: kimall@private To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> > It is not unthinkable that scientists have political biases. In fact, it > would be remarkable if many were not lifelong Democrats who may be > tempted to be a bit more critical of a Republican's science policies > than they would, say, a Bill Clinton's. Ptooey. A good chunk of scientists are lifelong Republicans who identify more strongly with the hardheaded, reductionist approach of conservatives than with the more flexible, contingent approach of liberals. > Moreover, many scientists rely > on government funding of domestic programs, which arguably increases > faster under Democratic regimes. Wrong again. What's important is to realize that the majority of scientific research is funded through grants from the military branches (assuming you count applied research along with "basic" research-- the latter hardly exists anymore, actually)-- think ARL, NRL, DOD.... This can be seen for the Clinton case at http://www.cdi.org/issues/research.html. It's not totally clearcut, but for the most part, scientific research has done better under Republican regimes. Although this site defines research a little differently than the pie chart above, consider the historical trends seen at http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/far/ch3_f3.html. Note the steep increases under Reagan. If the non-military budget increased so steeply, DOD's share of the pie got even bigger. Kim Allen -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 00:45:51 +0300 (EEST) From: Jei <jei@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> CC: politech@private References: <4091D902.4050704@private> What about the Billions of dollars being pushed to new nuclear weapons development and bioweapons programs? I would say the money is flowing pretty well with the republicans in power as well. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 07:12:11 -0500 From: Joseph A. Nagy, Jr. <jnagyjr@joseph-a-nagy-jr.homelinux.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <4091D902.4050704@private> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 12:41:38AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote the following: > It is not unthinkable that scientists have political biases. In fact, it > would be remarkable if many were not lifelong Democrats who may be > tempted to be a bit more critical of a Republican's science policies > than they would, say, a Bill Clinton's. Moreover, many scientists rely > on government funding of domestic programs, which arguably increases > faster under Democratic regimes. > > That said, this editorial is pretty disturbing and ties enough threads > together to be pretty convincing. > > Editorial at: > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=0001E02A-A14A-1084-983483414B7F0000 > > -Declan <snip> Are you really surprised by this? I'm not surprised at all. It seems to me that Bush is going to rely on Christian Fundamentalists to get him re-elected. (Un)Fortunately (depending on how you look at it) they make up a very noisy minority. -- Joseph A. Nagy, Jr. http://joseph-a-nagy-jr.homelinux.org Political Activist Extraordinaire Peace, Life, Liberty "The only fallacy is the inaction on our part to stave off the worst of horrors, the stripping of personal freedom." -- Joseph A. Nagy, Jr. January 2004 _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 04 2004 - 23:26:30 PDT