|
 |
February 19, 2004 CONSERVATIVE LYSENKOISM....THE DEFINITIVE REPORT....Chris Mooney emailed me yesterday to draw my attention to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists about how deeply the ideological tentacles of the Bush administration have extended into the process of scientific research in America. I was planning to write about this myself but I wanted to look at the actual report first. Unfortunately, the UCS website was down when I tried to read it. Today it's back up. Regular readers will know that I've blogged about individual aspects of this in the past, and in a lot of ways it represents one of the most chilling aspects of the Bush administration: they just don't care about facts. They want to do what they want to do regardless of whether it will work or whether it makes sense, and this extends to economic policymaking, war planning, and now even scientific studies. "Conservative Lysenkoism" is the term I've coined for it. The UCS report describes several specific examples of the Bush
administration deliberately ignoring or distorting scientific results
for purely ideological purposes:
The report also talks about the litmus tests that are widely in place for appointment to scientific panels. Rather than picking the best scientists, the White House instead chooses people who are most likely to agree with their own ideological preferences. As the report puts it, "the current administration has repeatedly allowed political considerations to trump scientific qualifications in the appointment process." The UCS report, which is endorsed by 20 Nobel prize winners, makes clear that it has no problem with arguments over policy. After all, there are usually plenty of facts and arguments on both sides of any policy question. It's perfectly valid, for example, to argue for a wide variety of policy responses to global warming, including doing nothing. But putting your head in the sand and refusing to accept the actual research itself is another thing entirely. It's hard to think of anything more corrosive to the scientific process, and the extent to which the Bush administration does this is unprecedented. Nixon didn't do it, Reagan didn't do it, and Bush Sr. and Clinton didn't do it. Only the current administration has done this on a regular and sustained basis. As John Quiggin pointed out last year, there is now virtually no academic discipline acceptable to orthodox Republicans. They don't want to hear about facts and they don't want to hear about research. Rather, they seem to think that somehow the world will conform to their views regardless of what the reality actually is, and anyone who says that the reality is different is simply a political enemy to be ignored or smeared as circumstances require. It's scary. Posted by Kevin Drum at February 19, 2004 12:29 PM | TrackBackComments
I find it hard to believe that no previous administration acted in this manner (not that it makes it right). Posted by: Ugh at February 19, 2004 12:43 PM | PERMALINKIf anyone expected anything less from people who said that the jury was still out on evolution during the campaign, who had crowds that cheered on the phrase "Fuzzy Math", who shortly after they took office blocked upgrades in arsenic filtering in drinking water, who picked a magic number of stem cell lines out of the air without any knowledge about where that number came from, and who were put in office almost entirely thanks to people who stand to benefit the most from ignoring what science has to say about the environment, there's something wrong with you. Any sane person saw this coming months, years ago. Heck, we can even put a good portion of the blame for the Mad Cow scare on this kind of philosophy. I keep hearing from Republicans how they're the party of progress, that by being pro-big business, they're the ones who can help technology advance fastest into the future. We should cut regulations on things like the FDA so that drugs get moved through faster and things of that sort. But when they're sayign we should cut regulations to help science on one hand, and then ignoring any conclusions they don't like on the other hand, where's the credibility? Posted by: Balta at February 19, 2004 12:44 PM | PERMALINKWow! Thanks, Kevin. Unfortunately, as in most elections, issues pertaining to the health of the environment will probably not be in the forefront of this year's debate. I guess it's just not sexy enough. My Republican brother-in-law still believes that global warming is a figment of the imagination of research scientists that cannot ween themselves off of the research grant teat.... Posted by: TheGlaweman at February 19, 2004 12:44 PM | PERMALINKThose who don't believe in evolution should not be allowed anywhere near the apparatus of government. Period. Well, except maybe Afghanistan. Posted by: Elrod at February 19, 2004 12:47 PM | PERMALINKI find it hard to believe that no previous administration acted in this manner (not that it makes it right). Which is probably why this administration mostly gets away with it; lots of people just assume that that's what's going on anyway, and don't believe that anyone in government really cares about the truth. Posted by: cmdicely at February 19, 2004 12:48 PM | PERMALINKScientific matters are really no different from other areas for Bush. People argue about whether Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction in justifying the invasion of Iraq. "Lying" is not the correct term. The real issue is that Bush couldn't care less what was true and what was not. If what he was saying was true, fine. If not, who cares? It's not that he intentionally lies, but that he has a reckless disregard for the truth. Blogger Zizka (John Emerson) has coined a term for this phenomenon: "truthslaughter". Truthslaughter is to lying as manslaughter is to murder. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at February 19, 2004 12:49 PM | PERMALINKI feel so much safer with people at the helm who will make bold decisions based on what they want to believe, rather than being distracted by inconvienent facts. Don't you? If use the scientific method to determine what's true and what's not, then the terrorists have won. Posted by: uh_clem at February 19, 2004 12:50 PM | PERMALINKHere's one thing that no previous administration has done before the Bush Administration: Pay the Moonie purity cult's wacky missionaries to teach in public schools under Abstinence-Only. Pass it on. Par for the course. For the Bushites, ideology trumps truth every time. Posted by: "Fair and Balanced" Dave at February 19, 2004 12:56 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I think you have to include the stem cell research debacle in
that list. It's the hottest thing going in medical research, and we
basically shipped it overseas to help Bush with a constituency, and only
because of an irrational perception within that constituency (that the
embryos being used in stem cell research were created for that
research). Ben, I did slap it in my comment earlier, if that makes you feel better. Posted by: Balta at February 19, 2004 12:58 PM | PERMALINKMost American voters do not follow scientific research closely. However, this travesty should not disappear into media oblivion. I can think of two fellas named John who should be front and center drumming up this issue and stating clearly how they plan to undo it in their first 100 days. Not only is it an important reason to replace the current ideologues in the Executive branch, but there is widely underestimated political hay to be made of it. Posted by: froz gobo at February 19, 2004 12:58 PM | PERMALINKThe thoughts of the Glorious Leader are without blemish or flaw. In other words -- we don' need no steenkin' science!!! Posted by: Charles K at February 19, 2004 12:59 PM | PERMALINKuh clem, yesterday's SUV thread had a link to an article about the differences between SUVs and cars. The SUV drivers feel safe but aren't, whereas small car drivers feel unsafe but are actually better off. If it feels good, do it. It's the conservative way. Posted by: Matt at February 19, 2004 01:01 PM | PERMALINKI can't deny facts, but I do question the timing of this report. Why is it released during a heated presedential campaign? Shouldn't scientists be objective? Anyway, every time I hear about scientists becoming involved in politics I think about the Rosenbergs. Scientists keep your nose in your research laboratories and out of politics. Do not degrade your trade or Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind will come true. Posted by: Ricky Vandal at February 19, 2004 01:01 PM | PERMALINKFrankly, if they insist on governing like this, perhaps Republicans should be treated like the Taliban... Posted by: Thumper at February 19, 2004 01:03 PM | PERMALINKYour demand that the Bush administration apply the scientific method to obtain results displays a woeful ignorance of how faith-based scientific research works. First God's favorite president tells you what outcomes he wants, then you give him those outcomes and call them science. Faith-based intelligence works the same way. Posted by: Austin Mayor at February 19, 2004 01:07 PM | PERMALINKWhat about the brain drain this causes in the US science community? I've read that stem-cell researchers have all gone to Europe. It's ironic that Bush has us inching ever closer the same religious fanatisim that powers Osama. Bush most not get another 4 years...and now I finally believe he won't. Posted by: drip drip at February 19, 2004 01:10 PM | PERMALINKfroz gobo - Don't count on at least one of those Johns to put science at the forefront. He built his fortune on ignoring scientific evidence. Posted by: Ugh at February 19, 2004 01:11 PM | PERMALINKKevin, why won't you give up on your tinfoil hat conspiracies? Let's hear some issues! Oh, oops, I meant to post this in some other thread. Now I look like a total friggin' retard, don't I? Posted by: Al - I mean, Matt Young - I mean, Freeptard at February 19, 2004 01:12 PM | PERMALINKOther than wiping out the school system, hampering research has got to be the policy most destructive to our nation's future. Posted by: Boronx at February 19, 2004 01:14 PM | PERMALINKYet another reason to regard the Bush Administration as the worst in modern times. They don't care if they get anything right. They are in government only to enrich themselves and their cronies. That's ALL they are about. Posted by: grytpype pronounced grit-pipe at February 19, 2004 01:15 PM | PERMALINKShorter Ricky V: I can't deny facts, so ad hominem. Posted by: Tripp at February 19, 2004 01:15 PM | PERMALINKShouldn't scientists be objective? Yes. The objective truth is that the Bush administration has a reckless disregard for science. Being "objective" does not mean one pays lipservice to falsehood. Anyway, every time I hear about scientists becoming involved in politics I think about the Rosenbergs. Weren't the Rosenbergs a pair of working-class children of immigrants from Manhattan's lower-east side? How do you associate scientists with the Rosenbergs? The problem with scientists is that they care more about their work than with politics. While this is the nature of science and the nature of being a specialist, the problem is that this allows them to be used and abused by those who would exploit their work for political purposes. They're learning that they need to become more politically astute and politically involved to make sure that their research isn't, shall we say, "drowned in the bathtub." Posted by: Constantine at February 19, 2004 01:15 PM | PERMALINKI can't deny facts, but I do question the timing of this report. Why is it released during a heated presedential campaign? The campaign supposedly hasn't started yet. And when is it more appropriate to inform the people that their incumbent government ignores facts? Posted by: NTodd at February 19, 2004 01:16 PM | PERMALINKRU, why do you think the Adminstration should be sheltered from criticism -- even very well founded criticism -- because it is an election year? I know why the Administration thinks that, but what's your excuse? Posted by: grytpype pronounced grit-pipe at February 19, 2004 01:18 PM | PERMALINKI can't deny facts, but I do question the timing of this report. Why is it released during a heated presedential campaign? Doesn't matter The campaign hasn't ever stopped for this adminstration. That's precisely why they behave the way they do. Posted by: David W. at February 19, 2004 01:19 PM | PERMALINKIt's not even ideological -- it's just corrupt. They're not blinded by the truth, they're indifferent to it. They are driven solely by ambition to keep power -- they exist to provide advantage to their base in return for the base keeping them in power, regardless of the basis of the advantage. Posted by: eyelessgame at February 19, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINKFar left interest group dislike Bush. Film at 11... Posted by: Al at February 19, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINKWho's Lysenko??? (Sorry, too many people have used this word for me not to know :( ) Posted by: bubba at February 19, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINKI'm not so sure this hasn't been done before (not that I'm condoning it, you understand). Didn't C. Everett Koop resign as Reagan's Surgeon General because the True Believers in that administration were telling him what they wanted him to "find" regarding AIDS? Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 19, 2004 01:21 PM | PERMALINK"Far left interest group dislike Bush. Film at 11..." Yeah, what do Nobel Prize Laureates know about science anyway? Certainly no more than a man who doesn't read the newspaper, right, Al? And definitely not more than you. Jesus, Al... whose head is bigger, yours or Bush's? Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 19, 2004 01:27 PM | PERMALINKI find it hard to believe that no previous administration acted in this manner (not that it makes it right). Two comments. First, it wasn't always this way according to some Republicans and many Democrats. NPR yesterday quoted Russel Train, EPA Administrator under Nixon and Ford: "In all my time as EPA administrator under Nixon and Ford, I do not recall ever receiving even a suggestion, let alone an order from the White House as to how I should make a regulatory decision. How times have changed!" The other point is that while there is always politics involved in developing regulations, it's far different (and relatively unprecidented) to inject politics into the actual science behind those decisions -- changing the science, witholding results, prohibiting qualified people from being on advisory committees, etc. It's also interesting that the White House defense was to boast about the Administration's new "peer review" regulations that would prohibit any reviews from scientists who had done work for that government agency, leaving primarly industry "scientists" to do the "peer" reviewing. This actually can be a campaign issue. We're talking about real effects on peoples lives. Discrediting OSHA scientific witnesses, complaining about "Lack of science" was very effectively used with Congress, small businesses and the press to first delay, and then repeal the OSHA ergonomics standard. The challenge is to make the connections between the (academic sounding) distortions of the scientific process, and the actual effects -- more people with crippling ergonomic injuries, more lead poisoned children, and more harmful pesticides. The challenge is bringing this one-day story into peoples' homes and
workplaces on a daily basis from now until November. Like the employment
issues, that's job not just for Edwards and Kerry, but for all of us. bubba: For the lowdown on Lysenko, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko Posted by: Shem at February 19, 2004 01:29 PM | PERMALINKSince when is this news? This isn't a Bush- or even Republican-specific problem; the majority of Americans are Creationists and the vast majority believe in God. The dominant American worldview is magical rather than naturalistic, so why are we surprised when our democratically (or not) elected leaders look to the Bible for truth and to science for supporting propoganda? Posted by: tps12 at February 19, 2004 01:29 PM | PERMALINKI can't deny facts, but I do question the timing of this report. Why is it released during a heated presedential campaign? Because this is the time when the report could make a difference. If one political party is politicizing science in an unprecedented way, then the objective, rational response by scientists is to oppose the actions of that political party, and to do so as effectively as possible. Posted by: eyelessgame at February 19, 2004 01:30 PM | PERMALINKFar left interest group dislike Bush. Film at 11... People engaged in rational, objective analysis of the world are a far left interest group? Reality aligns with the opinions of the left? Not that I don't agree, but I certainly didn't expect to hear this sentiment from a freeptard. Posted by: eyelessgame at February 19, 2004 01:33 PM | PERMALINKLysenko was the science policy advisor to Stalin who successfully advocated policies -- particularly agricultural ones -- that conformed to political doctrine but were scientifically unfounded and ultimately proved catastrophic. He cultivated an image as a scientist but was little more than a charlatan. His actions led directly to the deaths of thousands to millions of citizens of the then-USSR. Posted by: bleh at February 19, 2004 01:34 PM | PERMALINKSome mindless troll spewed... Far left interest group dislike Bush. Film at 11... Amongst the "far left" types who signed on to that report are 20 Nobel laureates and 19 winners That's a lot more intellectual firepower than you'll find anywhere on the right. Posted by: caerbannog at February 19, 2004 01:35 PM | PERMALINKKevin, you didn't even mention their clean bill of health to the World Trade Center site. When you get right down to it, the Bush administration hates quantification of all kinds. Even their love for smashing things pales beside the intensity of their hatred for counting them. They took office by stopping the counting of votes, they started a war by stopping the counting of weapons, they destroyed the budget by refusing to count costs, etc. etc. etc.. Posted by: FlipYrWhig at February 19, 2004 01:40 PM | PERMALINK"Scientists keep your nose in your research laboratories and out of politics." If only the religious right would heed the same advice. Posted by: Fred Arnold at February 19, 2004 01:40 PM | PERMALINK"Far left interest group dislike Bush. Film at 11..." So science is an "interest group" of the far lest, huh? Guess that's cause Jeebus don't like no science right? Posted by: The Templar at February 19, 2004 01:41 PM | PERMALINKYou know what sucks, this means people like me who would rather fuck
around with guitars allday now have to not only pay attention to the
news, It isn't just the natural sciences. In education research, they've established the "Institute for Education Research" with a crazed man (Russ Whitehurst) who thinks that science only occurs if you have double-blind research studies. (So, the work NASA is doing on Mars is not scientific!) As a result, virtually all research on education has been labelled non-scientific. Posted by: Blue at February 19, 2004 01:42 PM | PERMALINKHey Ricky - think you're pretty wrong on the timing thing. scientists have been saying this in scientific journals for a while
now. this prompted Congressman Waxman, in California, to issue a report
charging the Bush Admin with various specific instances of
manipulating, skewing and ignoring science. that report was issued last
summer; it can be found here: the response at the time? "we need time to respond." as yet, there of course has not BEEN a response. guess they're still prayin for it. so the "timing" issue you raise? it's wrong. it's an issue of "we're not giving you any more time to respond to our complaints about manipulating science." Posted by: Wendy at February 19, 2004 01:42 PM | PERMALINK"That's a lot more intellectual firepower than you'll find anywhere on the right." Ah, but as Peggy Noonan in the WSJ so happily declared of Bush: "He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world." So you'll need a lot more than intellectual firepower to pursuade this bunch. Posted by: TRipp at February 19, 2004 01:43 PM | PERMALINKJesus, Al... whose head is bigger, yours or Bush's? Wrong question, scarshapedscar, should have been- whose head is emptier, your's or Bush's? Posted by: four legs good at February 19, 2004 01:43 PM | PERMALINKAl, was that you or your stalker? It's so hard to tell. If you or your stalker have specific objectsion, please address them. Posted by: M. at February 19, 2004 01:45 PM | PERMALINKAny sane person saw this coming months, years ago. Heck, we can even put a good portion of the blame for the Mad Cow scare on this kind of philosophy. Balta, you're closer to the truth than you might have thought. The report includes copies of two agency-internal memoranda. One describes in excruciating detail the anguish at the EPA as they decided simply not to include the climate-change chapter in the ROE. The second is a list of 28 sensitive issues that "accompanied a directive to USDA staff scientists to seek prior approval before publishing any research or speaking publicly on 'sensitive issues.'" And there on the list, at #15, is this gem: "All transmissible encephalopathy (TSE) research including BSE research." That's right: scientific research on Mad Cow Disease is subject to administrative approval (elsewhere known as "prior restraint") over at the USDA. Thank you, Dear Leader! Posted by: Dr. Bonzo at February 19, 2004 01:45 PM | PERMALINKAs Al has noted above Nobel prize winners are a left wing interest group. You elitist cowards might not like to accept the obvious glaring truth of it but it is true nonetheless, in the same way that a beautiful poem or a sunset lightly tinged with chemical haze is true. The fact is that these folks, I use that term advisedly, are traitors, by accepting a prize from a bunch of commies such as the french - who once again have insulted the fine anglo-american tradition of english by spelling noble wrong - they are succumbing to worst kind of blame america firstism. You know america has it's own prizes for intellectual achievement, have any of these people seen fit to get the the merit badge? or the thingamajig? No, I thought not. They'd rather kowtow to a bunch of european anti-semites by winning stuff from THEM. Posted by: Blaise Cassidy at February 19, 2004 01:46 PM | PERMALINKLets all put our money where our mouths are and send $25 (or more, if you are one of the few people who has had steady employment over the last few years) to the Union of Concerned Scientists. I signed up via their website today and for a $35 donation you get a canvas tote bag - perfect for hauling your groceries home from the store without killing trees. Posted by: Texan embarrassed by Bush at February 19, 2004 01:46 PM | PERMALINKEver seen a western where the hero achieved anything at all by caring about science? Posted by: John Wayne at February 19, 2004 01:50 PM | PERMALINKHeros in Error. We follow them BECAUSE they are wrong. Only stiff wonks and pointy-headed intellectuals care about getting things right. Posted by: grytpype pronounced grit-pipe at February 19, 2004 01:54 PM | PERMALINKIsn't faith-based thinking what BushCo, neocons, and the fundamentalists are all about? 'I believe, therefore it is so'. If nothing else they are perfectly consistent in their thinking. Why should science be excluded? Posted by: category 3 at February 19, 2004 01:55 PM | PERMALINKOne of the signatories, Richard L. Garwin, had an op-ed in the NY Times praising Rumsfeld -- though this was on Dec. 30, 2000, before the inaugeration. I suspect that Garwin, who if I recall correctly describes himself as a "lifelong Republican", would no longer write so favorably of Rummy. Posted by: bob at February 19, 2004 01:55 PM | PERMALINKI don't know much about most of those issues, but I wouldn't say that there is "no reputable scientific data" showing a link between abortion and breast cancer. In fact, there have been about 30 studies showing such a link, while about a dozen studies fail to show that link. See a summary of research here. The best one could say, as far as I can tell, is that the studies are mixed -- which is exactly what the Bush administration's website said. Posted by: Stuart Buck at February 19, 2004 01:56 PM | PERMALINKRe: "Conservative Lysenkoism" Kevin, It may be Lysenkoism, but there is nothing "conservative" about the Bush administration and its policies. I think we do a disservice to the decent and honorable tradition of Conservatism when we use that word so casually and inappropriately. Posted by: peter jung at February 19, 2004 01:56 PM | PERMALINKI would like to welcome Ricky into the Drum troll family. All our temps have left, and I was worried about being all alone. Posted by: Al at February 19, 2004 01:59 PM | PERMALINKThis issue was brought up 2 months into the Bush Presidency as a feature article in Scientific American. Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at February 19, 2004 02:01 PM | PERMALINKBushCo is a confluence of the very wealthy, who only know of getting their way, and the religious who deny the existence of the scientific method. Their denial of reality is hardly surprising. Posted by: g2k at February 19, 2004 02:09 PM | PERMALINKLinks to prior stories regarding Administration and science can be found here. Those are links to (mostly) stories in scientific publications regarding this politicization, and they go back at least a year and a half. Posted by: Linkmeister at February 19, 2004 02:10 PM | PERMALINKre: why this is being published now The article in the NY Times quoted someone associated with the UCS as saying that this report took year to produce. Sometimes it takes 2 years to make an enemy with your policies. Posted by: ChrisS at February 19, 2004 02:13 PM | PERMALINK"I can't deny facts, but I do question the timing of this report. Why is it released during a heated presedential campaign?" Mr. Vandal, if the administration's politicization of science isn't a legitimate political issue, then what the heck is? When people and institutions are under political attack, aren't they entitled to respond politically? What remedy do we have for the Bush administration doing things like this, other than to chuck the whole gang out of office? Posted by: rea at February 19, 2004 02:14 PM | PERMALINKI find this to be THE biggest injustice of the current regime.We live
in a world that relies totally on the facts that science delivers. So we have a bunch of left leaning scientists complaining about the inclusion of some right leaning scientists. More of that big tent philosophy of the left? And for the inevitable "but all science is objective" cries, I will submit this link Link blatantly stolen from Deinonychus Antirrhopus Posted by: Ron at February 19, 2004 02:15 PM | PERMALINK
Oh gawwwd.... not another right-wing postmodernist.... It may be Lysenkoism, but there is nothing "conservative" about the Bush administration and its policies. Actually, I'd say the Bush Administration is fairly Conservative in
the old, authoritarian/traditional/religious sense, rather than the
newer, small government libertarian sense. Its also, of course,
conservative in the even newer "neoconservative" sense. A nice Freeman Dyson, on being a smart kid in a tyrannical public school: "With no help from the school authorities, we founded a science society. As a persecuted minority, we kept a low profile. We held our meetings quietly and inconspicuously. We could do no real experiments. All we could do was share books and explain to each other what we didn't understand. But we learned a lot. Above all, we learned those lessons that can never be taught by formal courses of instruction; that science is a conspiracy of brains against ignorance, that science is a revenge of victims against oppressors, that science is a territory of freedom and friendship in the midst of tyranny and hatred." From "To Teach or Not to Teach," 1990 Fortunately, science nerds in this country have the option of speaking out. The Union of Concerned Scientists is a necessary counterweight to the Legion of Bought-Off Token Researchers employed by places like the American Enterprise Institute and the Club for Growth. More power to them. May they raise holy hell about the slow degredation of truth and reason. Posted by: Stefan Jones at February 19, 2004 02:21 PM | PERMALINKLast night I watched part of some special about the Vatican forcing Galileo to recant, it seemed so up to the minute! And G's sponsor Medici knuckling under to remain in power. Amazing stuff. Posted by: Chasseur at February 19, 2004 02:23 PM | PERMALINKI think the most craven example of the Bushie's rewrite of science was the override of EPA warnings of the unprecedented level of harmful pollutants in NY after 911. They used sympathy for 911 for every political advantage, while of course they didn't give a rat's behind about the health of any New Yorker. Posted by: ESaund at February 19, 2004 02:29 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely, Thanks for the response. What I think is going on is that the entrenched interests have managed to take good old-fashioned corporate cronyism and dress it up as "conservatism." Of course, they could not have accomplished this without plenty of help from their wholly-owned subsidiary, The Media. Posted by: peter jung at February 19, 2004 02:30 PM | PERMALINKI generally agree with what this group of famous scientists say in their report, but by making it an attack on the Bush Administration they've identified themselves as partisan activists. This makes them heroes to their supporters but easily dismissed by their detractors, no matter how many shiny medals from Sweden they've amassed. To everyone else it's just another NY Times article they won't bother to read. The report would have been much more potent if it had been phrased as a criticism of trends in Federal science policy and aimed at the relevant people on congressional subcommitees and similar Washington science folk. Instead this group went for the big publicity stunt (not uncommon behavior among Nobel Prize winners like Lederman) to get their positions (and names) in their favorite newspaper -- maybe even generate an editorial! Lots of fun for the chattering classes but not very helpful for science. Shouldn't scientists be objective? Anyway, every time I hear about scientists becoming involved in politics I think about the Rosenbergs. Scientists keep your nose in your research laboratories and out of politics. So are scientists less entitled to political opinions than lawyers or businessmen or farmers or what-have-you, then? Guess I never got the memo. I guess if you know something about science, then you have a conflict of interest and should automatically recuse yourself from any political issues that relate to science. Just like if you know something about economics, you should automatically recuse yourself from political discussions on the economy (fortunately for us, our president is "not a statistician" and can therefore offer statistics w/o a whiff of conflict of interest). Heaven forbid if knowledge of a subject were to actually give you *more* credibility to speak on it. Posted by: Suzanne at February 19, 2004 02:40 PM | PERMALINKLike we needed any more proof of the failure of Scaife-style solipsism: how about that accumulating pile of bodies in the Mesopotamian basin? And I don't see how you can talk about this w/out indicting the present administration, Del. They and their supporters were going to stick their fingers in their ears anyways, which is how we got to this sorry state of affairs. Watch this: And it all goes away! Neat, huh? Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 19, 2004 02:46 PM | PERMALINKI generally agree with what this group of famous scientists say in their report, but by making it an attack on the Bush Administration they've identified themselves as partisan activists. If you bothered to read it, you would have noticed htat several of the points describe things that no previous administration, Republican or Democratic, has done. there's nothing partisan in pointing this out. ... no matter how many shiny medals from Sweden they've amassed. Typical wingnut attitude. When your child gets meningitis, please call a faith healer. The report would have been much more potent if it had been phrased as a criticism of trends in Federal science policy and aimed at the relevant people on congressional subcommitees and similar Washington science folk. The Washington science folk aren't the problem It's the political operatives who shove them aside to score money and votes. Career science people are probably appalled bu this administration and applaud the letter.
Al, was that you or your stalker? It's so hard to tell. If you or your stalker have specific objectsion, please address them. The "Film at 11" comment was me. The "Drum troll family" comment was my stalker. Yes, it is hard to tell sometimes, but I, frankly, don't have any solution; I can't stop my stalker from stalking me. Of course, when I said "far left interest group", I was referring to the Union of Concerned Scientists, not Nobel Prize winners as a whole. Among the group of Nobel Prize winners will be members who are all over the board politically (although I suspect that the group in general is liberal, simply due to the selection process and the fact that academics are more likely to be liberal), and so it is completely unsurprising that a group of 20 of them will have far-left political views. There have always been groups of scientists who have far-left views and have been willing to express them - groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists (and the Federation of American Scientists) were always among the groups calling for nuclear disarmament, for example (together with other far left groups like Greenpeace). Moveover, I'd object to the "problem" of disregarding science being a Bush or Republican "problem". Remember the arsenic controversy? Well, it turns out that the "science" upon which the left-wing slammed Bush was a complete hoax - junk science. Did the left care? Nope. As long as they got there "do you want more arsenic in your water" advertisement on the air, the "science" involved was irrelevent. Ignoring science is just as much a left-wing problem as it is a right-wing problem. Posted by: Al at February 19, 2004 02:48 PM | PERMALINK Scientists keep your nose in your research laboratories and out of politics. Sounds like somebody would be happier in North Korea! Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 19, 2004 02:49 PM | PERMALINKFrom that left-wing rag, Fortune magazine: ?In sum, the risk of abrupt climate change remains uncertain, and it is quite possibly small. But given its dire consequences, it should be elevated beyond a scientific debate. Action now matters, because we may be able to reduce its likelihood of happening, and we can certainly be better prepared if it does. It is time to recognize it as a national security concern.? ?Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it.? http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html the Pentagon?s willing to admit it. but not Bush. He?s still prayin on it, I reckon. You could also add in Gingrich's closing down of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and Bush's marginization of the Whitehouse science advisor office. Shorter Ricky Vandal: Why do Nobel Laureates hate America? Posted by: Tom at February 19, 2004 02:50 PM | PERMALINKand I was worried about being all alone. as you surely know, a man with one hand is never alone. Posted by: Al's other hand at February 19, 2004 02:50 PM | PERMALINK academics are more likely to be liberal What Conservatives preach today is actually traditional Liberalism, though they don't seem to know it. What they actually do, however, is another story. Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 19, 2004 02:52 PM | PERMALINKRoger Bigod, As I said, I don't disagree with the content of the report. The subtitle/mission statement refers to Bush's misuse of science. This phrasing is political, and it is a mistake. Typical wingnut attitude. Wingnut? Oh my. As a professional scientist I take Nobel Prizes for what they're worth. They are awarded based on a politics all their own. The Washington science folk aren't the problem. I agree completely. I think they are in fact the solution. Articles in the NY Times and anti-Bush rhetoric, however, are not. Science policy is generally done under the radar, and if that changes I shudder to think what kind of science will start shaping policy. Posted by: Del at February 19, 2004 03:02 PM | PERMALINKOf course, when I said "far left interest group", I was referring to the Union of Concerned Scientists, not Nobel Prize winners as a whole. Among the group of Nobel Prize winners will be members who are all over the board politically (although I suspect that the group in general is liberal, simply due to the selection process and the fact that academics are more likely to be liberal), and so it is completely unsurprising that a group of 20 of them will have far-left political views.
"Scientists keep your nose in your research laboratories and out of politics." Lawyers, should too. Businessmen too, Farmers as well, Service Industry workers, Blue Collar workers, military personel, ... See how ridiculous you sound. Let me remind you: The SWAT team on the Missouri sided with the environment, which was totally unexpected. Otherwise the report is acurate. Posted by: argalite at February 19, 2004 03:08 PM | PERMALINKSeriously now, George W. Bush thinks he's a man with a religeous
purpose. His god saved him from self-destruction, and that He did for a
purpose. Now George W. believes in this destiny because it's everything
and all he has. George W. is a religious fundamentalist leader. In the core, he's operating on the same level as his Muslim peers. How *could* he like or care for science? Posted by: John Wayne at February 19, 2004 03:12 PM | PERMALINKI've never heard the term left or right leaning scientist.Unless your talking about junk scientists.This is precisely what the Bush administrations science policies are.JUNK Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of This is racism in science being promoted in the white house and it cannot be permitted to continue.I dont care which side of the "isle" you stand on.The science of life is too important to just play blind mans bluff on. Posted by: smalfish at February 19, 2004 03:23 PM | PERMALINKSome years ago the Episcopal Church ran an ad campaign that included a poster with the phrase: "He died to take away your sins, not your brains ." Note how Bushco takes full advantage of modern science while constantly denigrating it. Maybe he should give up the 747 and take a stagecoach to and from Crawford. Posted by: ____league at February 19, 2004 03:23 PM | PERMALINKBlaise: you need to check out http://www.nobelpeacecenter.org/ Hopefully these tidbits of actual factual information will help you realize that you could possibly be wrong about some other views you harbor. Posted by: USAF Brat at February 19, 2004 03:30 PM | PERMALINKI still wait for the day that supporters of the administration will recognize that their beloved leader has made a policy mistake. I was a big fan of Clinton but, my god, he said and did things that I thought were plain stupid. But this administration has engendered a kind of loyalty i haven't seen since the reagan years. Tax cuts / Homeland security shortfalls / the Deficit / International Relations / The War in Iraq ! / Job Growth / Science Policy: the Bush admin never lies, never is wrong, never is at fault. The UCS makes specific verifiable claims of partisan interference in science policy. Is there ONE factual rebuttal in this thread? NO! Just the usual claims: Clinton did it / UCS is a bunch of liberals / the partisan interference really didn't happen. For the Bush partisans on this thread: what evidence do you need before recognizing that the administration made a policy error? I'd love to know what the quantum of evidentiary proof is to get you partisans to change your minds. ye gods, what an unbelievable story, and what pathetic defenses. Francis As a professional scientist I take Nobel Prizes for what they're worth. They are awarded based on a politics all their own. I kind of doubt you're a professional scientist, because your dismissal of Nobel Prizes as "shiny medals from Sweden" implies that they're trivial or fraudulent. There is certainly a polical process involved in the decisions, which has been written up several times. But the general consensus is that they are reasonably fair and accurate in picking the best work. At least for the last 50 years or so under the present selection process, every one I know about represents a solid accomplishment. It is the case that the Prize tends to allow recipients to pontificate outside their domain of competence, with mixed results. But speaking out against this administration's dishonesty appears to be an excellent use of the laureates' prestige. Certainly if a corporation misrepresented data in a submission to the FDA, prison sentences would be appropriate. Posted by: Roger Bigod at February 19, 2004 03:31 PM | PERMALINK___league, February- The bloodiest month on record in Iraq,All based on bad science. Posted by: smalfish at February 19, 2004 03:42 PM | PERMALINKWhy is it all we see from the wingnuts here are antiscience heretics.Because there is no scientists that can back up the policies that this white house promotes.You base your life on religion but science bails you out when religion fails you. Posted by: smalfish at February 19, 2004 03:45 PM | PERMALINKBad intelligence, Bad science, Bad economics. A C- president makes for C- administration, makes us C-US. Posted by: ch2 at February 19, 2004 03:46 PM | PERMALINKI find it hard to believe that no previous administration acted in this manner (not that it makes it right). There was some of it under Reagan. Serious neuroscience was harmed because word came down that funds were to be used to promote a moralistic approach to reacreational drugs rather than study their effects. The had of HHS or whatever it was called, a women named Heckler, lied egregiously at press conferences about AIDS, at least at first when it was a political hot potato. Missle defence was and is a scam and several prominent physicists and computer scientists testified to that effect. There were good review articles on journals like Nature pointing out that it was delusional. But the Bush administration seems to have taken it to a new level. There are no pro-Bush scientists left. I've witnessed the 30% of people at work who had voted for W 3 years ago (benefit of the doubt and all), turn solidly ABB. Disaster is the commonly voiced sentiment. Posted by: ch2 at February 19, 2004 03:49 PM | PERMALINKI kind of doubt you're a professional scientist, because your dismissal of Nobel Prizes... Er, right, I just say that to impress the ladies. The best measure of a scientist's success is their citation index, not their prize list. Anyway, my point is that these scientists are picking a political
fight. When a scientist and politician fight in public, the scientist
will always lose. When a scientist operates outside the public eye, the
scientist usually wins. The UCS is not being helpful, no matter how
correct they are. So are scientists less entitled to political opinions than lawyers or businessmen or farmers or what-have-you, then? Of course not, but shouldn't it be stated explicitly if it impacts on their research? I guess if you know something about science, then you have a conflict of interest and should automatically recuse yourself from any political issues that relate to science. No of course not, becuase if we followed this strictly there wouldn't be scientist out there that could comment on anything. However, it would be nice if a scientists subjective beliefs and views were reflected explicitly in their research...sort of like laying their cards on the table. As for politicized science of previous administrations how about second hand smoke? The evidence is shakey at best and yet policy is based on it. As for global warming, near unanimity does not mean the scientists are correct. At one time scientists were unanimous about the existence of the atom; i.e., it didn't exist. Scientists were also pretty much unanimous about the interior rotation of the sun...turned out they were all wrong. Posted by: Steve at February 19, 2004 03:51 PM | PERMALINKThere are a lot of politics involved in who is awarded a Nobel Prize in science. The reason for this is that there is so much good science out there. Noone has ever claimed that a Nobel Prize winner didn't deserve his or her prize, though certainly there were dozens of other qualified candidates. Posted by: Constantine at February 19, 2004 03:52 PM | PERMALINKThe UCS is not being helpful, no matter how correct they are.
I've just been out to the UCS homepage. Citizen's and Scientists for Environmental Solutions. A couple of other papers they have going: The Dark Side of Bush's Moon Mission It looks to me like the UCS is trying to politicize science as much as Bush. Posted by: Ron at February 19, 2004 03:54 PM | PERMALINKHoly crap, FDL, what supporters of this administration have you been following... Look at the criticism at Nation Review Online, and other conservative sites. Show me similar left leaning criticism. Blinding following a group of scientists, heavily left leaning ones with a political agenda, because they are "scientists" is the ulitimate in "faith". I'll bet most of you that believe in the "almost unanimous scientific consensus" haven't researched the massive disagreement on the MAGNITUDE of the human influence of global warming. In short, many of you lefties, are no better than the "ignorant" righties, believing conclusions that agree with you view of the world and dismissing the ones that don't. Posted by: JFH at February 19, 2004 03:55 PM | PERMALINKnear unanimity does not mean the scientists are correct
JFH If I am a scientist and come to a conclusion that is not what Bushco believes does that make me "left leaning"? Posted by: ____league at February 19, 2004 04:04 PM | PERMALINKAt one time scientists were unanimous about the existence of the atom; i.e., it didn't exist. Scientists were also pretty much unanimous about the interior rotation of the sun...turned out they were all wrong. And they would never have gotten it right if politicians and prists hadn't corrected them. "I can't deny facts, but I do question the timing of this report. Why is it released during a heated presedential campaign? Shouldn't scientists be objective? Anyway, every time I hear about scientists becoming involved in politics I think about the Rosenbergs. Scientists keep your nose in your research laboratories and out of politics. Do not degrade your trade or Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind will come true." Ricky Vandal This has to be a plant just to get a bunch of people all riled up. Nobody, simply nobody can be this brainless. Unless....Ricky, just between you and me, are your initials G.W.B.? Posted by: JimmiRayBob at February 19, 2004 04:35 PM | PERMALINK"At one time scientists were unanimous about the existence of the atom; i.e., it didn't exist." Ridiculous ! They were unanimously ignorant of the existence of the atom, not unanimous that it DIDN'T exist. Posted by: ch2 at February 19, 2004 04:43 PM | PERMALINKThe UCS is not an apolitical group. The left is just as intolerant of dissent and you should go to Bjorn Lumborg's web site to see how viciously he has been attacked for questioning the orthodoxy of global warming. We are emerging from an ice age and another ice age may even have been averted by the warming. The little ice age lasted from 1400 to about 1850. Human activity is probably part of the story and dates from 10,000 BC when agriculture began. The left orthodoxy holds that civilization, and especially the automobile, is responsible and must be stopped. There is no realistic prospect of altering human activity significantly and those who raise the issue with the most passion are the same people who oppose nuclear power, a reasonable alternative to fossil fuel use for electricity generation. Posted by: Mike K at February 19, 2004 04:45 PM | PERMALINKThe left orthodoxy holds that civilization, and especially the automobile, is responsible and must be stopped. Er, no, it isn't. The most common position on the left is that civilization, particularly burning of fossil fuels(which includes, but is not limited to, the automobile) contributes significantly (not "is responsible"), and more importantly, contributes reducibly, and that there are potentially disastrous effects of not reducing the warming trend to the extent that it is controllable. Even if warming was completely natural, some of the possible consequences -- including, paradoxically, a potential rapid-onset mini-ice age if a major antarctic ice sheet slides into the sea -- it would be desirable to reduce it to the extent practical to avert the risks involved. There is no realistic prospect of altering human activity significantly By most definitions of "alter" and "human activity", this is nonsense, so I assume you are using some bizarre definition of one or the other. and those who raise the issue with the most passion are the same people who oppose nuclear power, a reasonable alternative to fossil fuel use for electricity generation. IME, that's not particularly true. The groups overlap, but are not identical, or even particularly strongly connected. Posted by: cmdicely at February 19, 2004 04:57 PM | PERMALINKShorter Al: "Lies, I tell you, damned lies." zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 19, 2004 05:01 PM | PERMALINKRidiculous ! They were unanimously ignorant of the existence of the atom, not unanimous that it DIDN'T exist. not according to the bushies/religious right. Posted by: smalfish at February 19, 2004 05:09 PM | PERMALINKThe left is just as intolerant of dissent and you should go to Bjorn Lumborg's web site to see how viciously he has been attacked for questioning the orthodoxy of global warming. There have been lots of infantile controversies in different parts of science, most without any obvious connection with conventional politics. The two most eminent neuropathologists in the world didn't speak for 20 years because of a disagreement over a very obscure point of interpretation. Recently, the bad science has been promoted by the Right. Creationism is the obvious example. There's also Duesberg's theories of AIDS, in which he was encouraged by Phillip Johnson, a crank Berkeley law professorwho promotes Creationism. But there's no reason why left wingers can't be wildly wrong. The people Sokal sent up in his famous hoax had probably never voted Republican in their lives. Posted by: Roger Bigod at February 19, 2004 05:11 PM | PERMALINKThe left is just as intolerant of dissent and you should go to Bjorn Lumborg's web site to see how viciously he has been attacked for questioning the orthodoxy of global warming History has been famoous for strife within the scientific
community,do not take this as a sign of discontent or discord.This Bjorn
has every right to dissenting views and the majority has a right to
critize.without debate within the community there is no consensus which
direction the inquiry should go.The same should be said about
politics,tho to hear the right its hate thats being spoken. http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/ct_abruptclimate.htm Woods hole oceanographic institute is a very respected science community and they have an opinion that is bordering on conclusion read it and make your opinion based on evidence rather than fear or lack thereof. Posted by: smalfish at February 19, 2004 05:25 PM | PERMALINKIn Missouri there's a new House Bill that's been introduced (No. 911 - how cute), the "Missouri Standard Science Act", which will require the teaching of "Intelligent Design" (first cousin of Creationism). The debate is being framed as "Intelligent Design" vs. evolution but it's much further reaching than that. The "act" would require that "All science taught in Missouri public elementary and secondary schools, including material concerning physics, chemistry, biology, health, physiology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, ecology, climateology, or other topics..." "Willful neglect of any elementary or secondary school superintendent, principal, or teacher to observe and carry out the requirements of this section shall be cause for termination..." Furthermore, the "act" calls for "...a committee of no fewer than five individuals who are knowledgeable of science AND SUPPORTIVE OF "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" to serve...prescribe a list of suitable textbooks which meet the requirements of this section..." Given all the state battles being waged it looks like the federal government is also going down the fundamentalist Know-Nothing road. I used to think that this administration wanted to turn the clock back to the 1950s but it's apparent that they, and their base, really want to turn time back to the 7th century. These people aren't Taliban-like. They ARE the Taliban. Fundamentalist Christian madrasas anyone? Posted by: JimmiRayBob at February 19, 2004 05:26 PM | PERMALINKDear smalfish, Pick up an itroductory science book. Read the definitions of hypothesis, theory, and scientific law. Memorize these definitions. Make an attemt to understand something of the scientific method. Your post lacks any credibility because it's all too apparent you don't understand the fundamentals of the arguments that you're trying so hard to make. The "left" IS intolerent of foolish notions dressed up as scientific. I suspect that the "right" is equally intolerent of foolishness (at least I hope so). "Dissent" IS the scientific method. The holy grail of science is to challenge scientific "truths" of the day. Imagine you're the first scientist to discover that gravity doesn't work (gravity is after all only a scientific theory, OK, maybe a law)!! You'd be famous. You'd get ALL the funding!! Whew, times would be good. BUT, and it's a big BUT, there has to be credible supporting observations and evidence and the evidence has to be thoroughly vetted by your peers. I'm gonna stick with the scientific community on the gravity thing. I'll probably go with the overwhelming scientific concensus on global warming too. Posted by: JimmiRayBob at February 19, 2004 05:48 PM | PERMALINKReligion has,all thru history played on our fears and held back the human spirit.This kind of hysteria over evolution is so suspect.The catholic church has needed a very large stick with witch to rule that they made up this thing called religion.like the current administration,They struck down dissenting views untill all had become believers.The catholic church is still very much in control of the majority and holds sway over the minds of these believers.It's such a pity too because we can become so much more than we are if religion would only stay in the places it belongs,in the hearts of the believers and not the minds. Posted by: smalfish at February 19, 2004 05:49 PM | PERMALINKgravity is after all only a scientific theory, OK, maybe a law What???? Posted by: smalfish at February 19, 2004 05:52 PM | PERMALINKWHAT?!?! You've got to be kidding! ok now I need you to jump.Yes jump.Good. "The left is just as intolerant of dissent and you should go to Bjorn Lumborg's web site to see how viciously he has been attacked for questioning the orthodoxy of global warming" Maybe I jumped to the wrong conclusion on your earlier post. I didn't recognize that this statement is probably from someone else and that you were responding to it. Sorry - please accept my apology. I was too hasty. My comments should have been directed to the author of the above line and similar postings. However, even though the price certainly was right, your experiment does nothing to "prove" gravity. It simply proves that if I jump off of a chair that I will land - hopefully not on my butt. In earlier times and in less advanced regions of the world today (White House) this observation would simply be attributed to 1) nothing, 2) God, 3) the gods, 4) pixies, 5)trolls and on and on. I shouldn't have taken a shortcut. When I referred to gravity I was really referring to the overall scientific conceptual framework that has been developed over the last few hundred years to explain apples falling to the ground and the motions of planets - not merely to the observation that things fall downward on earth. My haste was because I get ticked when people that really don't understand the argument go on spouting invective and trying to subvert the system of science that has been so hard won. Now that I've been vetted by my peers I vow to show more restraint. Just out of curiousity, when I hit the floor am I standing on a solid surface? Posted by: JimmiRayBob at February 19, 2004 06:27 PM | PERMALINKI was wondering.If cannot see air am I really breathing? Posted by: smalfish at February 19, 2004 06:33 PM | PERMALINKDuring Lysenko's reign as Soviet science czar, his rivals were actually shipped off to places like Siberia. Russian research in genetics was destroyed because Lysenko espoused the inheritance of acquired traits (Lamarckism) that seemed to him to be consistent with communist ideology. Geneticists who knew better had to be dismissed from their faculty positions and research laboratories to clear the way for Lysenko's toadies. The Bush administration is not as bad as Lysenko because it merely suppresses inconvenient results and threatens politically unhelpful scientists with defunding. Imprisonment is not yet a viable option. Real restructuring of science along Bushian lines will have to wait for a second term... So let's make sure there isn't one. Anyone not scared-or at least, profoundly disturbed- by the consequences this adminstration's distain for facts just hasn't thought things all the way through. Read Tom Barry's piece on the NeoCons' Philosophy of Intelligence in the Asia Times of Feb 19, (atimes.com),the same day the mainstream press released the USC report, I believe. One doesn't need to be a historian of American politics, though I am that, to understand that this administration's approach to policy making is indeed unprecedented. This administration is Nixon's stripped of policy makers and policy structures, staffed instead with a handful of political advisors hardwired to the clinically lunatic rightwing fringe on one hand and to corporate masters on the other. As far as the eye can see, Bush's political appointees are corrupt and cynical beyond measure, and often enough, just plain criminals(think Eliot Abrams, for example). Throw in that for a variety of reasons this adminstration has been largely exempted from scrutiny by the media, that a Republican Congress long ago abandoned any pretense of fulfilling its constitutional oversight duties, and that until fairly recently, our fellow American citizens have been willing to be terrorized into blind patriotic submission, and yeah, I think this adminstration is one that should scare us and then motivate us to do anything within our means to work for its defeat. Posted by: Julie Whitcomb at February 19, 2004 07:18 PM | PERMALINKThis is what Lomborg actually argued: In other words, he said that anthropogenic global warming was real, but (a) the the low-end estimates are correct, and (b) Kyoto is bad policy. Posted by: praktike at February 19, 2004 07:37 PM | PERMALINK An excellent example of "faith-based" science is mentioned above on this thread. It is the abortion-breast cancer debate (mentioned at 1:56 PM). The link between the two was discredited in the late '90s The religious right insisted the link exsisted and demanded that the NCI support that position. After another review the NCI refused since there is no evidence to support the connection. The religious right has not been deterred. They continue to insist that the NCI is "covering up evidence," and to push for the passage of state laws that insist physicians "tell the truth" about breast cancer and abortion. The only "truth" is "approved truth." The administration treats all science like this. Concise history with good footnotes here NCI Page here Posted by: caduceus at February 19, 2004 09:06 PM | PERMALINKThe religious right has not been deterred. They continue to insist that the NCI is "covering up evidence," and to push for the passage of state laws that insist physicians "tell the truth" about breast cancer and abortion. It looks like they've manipulated Google so that a search on "abortion breats cancer" returns mostly false material The truth is not in these people. Posted by: Roger Bigod at February 20, 2004 12:48 AM | PERMALINKAl write: "Remember the arsenic controversy? Well, it turns out that the "science" upon which the left-wing slammed Bush was a complete hoax - junk science. Did the left care? Nope. As long as they got there "do you want more arsenic in your water" advertisement on the air, the "science" involved was irrelevent. Ignoring science is just as much a left-wing problem as it is a right-wing problem." Al, this is complete bullshit. Your use of "junk science" suggests you've been reading Steve Milloy. He's the man you want to read if you want the official right-wing view on a particular scientific issue. He is not the man to read if you want an accurate assessment of scientific information. A better source of the latter would be the National Academy of Sciences, whose 2001 report is here: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309076293/html/ Al, think hard about this: when you make the conservative position the anti-knowledge position, you have really lost the battle. Lysenko:
Untill a better theory comes to light unanimity is the basis for scientific facts.usually this unanimity is right,for the majority can repeat tests and hypothysis and this is the basis of science that has led to all discoveries over the course of all history. This is stunningly bad. Unanimity is not the basis for scientific facts, but for scientific hypotheses. Facts are observed phenonmena like the sunrise. Hypotheses explain why we are observing the facts and no hypothesis should be considered fact. Lets take an example, Evolution. Evolution is a fact. Organismis evolve, i.e., their genes mutate. The Theory of Evolution--i.e., the theory that explains these facts is itself not a fact, but a construct of the human mind. It is the best explanation that we have for what is going on, but it could be replaced someday. The theory that replaces it will have to explain everything the current theory explains so please don't trot out the bullshit rhetoric about my supporting intelligent design (for my position on intelligent design click ). As for global warming there are no "tests". You can't do tests with this area of science in the sense that you can't pump out more or less green house gases and observe their effect. Further, with the global warming hypothesis there is considerable problems with things like the data that is used to arrive at the conclusions. Moreover, there is uncertainty over the magnitude of the change that is necessary. Finally, even some of those who believe in the global warming hypothesis agree that Kyoto will do virtually nothing (see Tom Wigley's paper on this) and that the steps necessary to prevent global warming would have to be much more draconian. Ridiculous ! Wrong. Actually when the first theories of the atom were being floated there were scientists who actively argued the atoms did not exist. These were actually top scientists and they argued using Popper's methodology. Try reading the link Ron posted above. Posted by: Steve at February 20, 2004 09:14 AM | PERMALINKSorry if this has already been mentioned. My current pet peeve regarding the degradation of science in the U.S. is the recent controversy at the Grand Canyon. For those of you unaware, the Park Service employees have been forced to include literature at the book store that contains the "theory" that the Grand Canyon isn't approx. 5 million years old. Nope. It might actually have been created all at once in a gigantic flood occurring, um, maybe 5-10,000 years ago! Below is just one link. If you google "grand canyon" and "creationism" you'll find hundreds. How in the world does Bush think that we can develop the geological knowledge required to interpret our data from the Mars trips he envisions when his political appointees allow (demand!) that this kind of nonsense be given space at the Grand Canyon book store. Posted by: AzRez at February 20, 2004 10:43 AM | PERMALINK"The "act" would require that "All science taught in Missouri public elementary and secondary schools, including material concerning physics, chemistry, biology, health, physiology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, ecology, climateology, or other topics..." Lots of bad laws are proposed in legislatures every day. The origin of the proposition 209 in California (banning affirmative action in state schools) was a proposed law by Willie Brown, then the Assembly Speaker, that would require state colleges and UC to GRADUATE minority students in the same percentage as they were admitted. That bill didn't pass but it stimulated two college professors to propose what became prop 209. The religious fundamentalists can home school their kids (a practice that liberals tried to outlaw) to believe in creationism, if they want to. Most of the stuff about creationism in schools is hyped by left wing groups fund raising by scaring people into thinking their liberties are being taken away. Exactly the aame practice is used by NOW and NARAL. The fundamentalists do the same thing in reverse. Lomborg, for proposing exactly what you posted above, was stripped of his teaching position. Here is the link: http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm He simply proposed an alternative that was more supported in science than Rachel Carson's science in Silent Spring. Both sides tend to be intolerant of their opponents but the left has had the upper hand in recent years. Espeically in Europe. Posted by: Mike K at February 20, 2004 02:29 PM | PERMALINKMost of the stuff about creationism in schools is hyped by left wing groups fund raising by scaring people into thinking their liberties are being taken away. Creationism is a religious doctrine without scientific evidence or
sceitnfic support. Teaching religion in public schools violates the
First Amendment. It certainly is taking away liberties. Ron, You are wrong on ALL counts. Actually I know my history of science. And it's quite clear that you are confusing several things: the modern atom concept and the atom concept of the Greeks. Apples and Oranges. Popper's methodology came out in 1934. Good evidence for the atom came about in the 19th and early 20th century, and was accepted before Popper ever came out with his "The Logic of Scientific Discovery". Finally, think through your logic carefully: When there is resistance to a new idea, by definition, there IS NO UNANIMITY. I'll coin a new word: Ignorepublican. Posted by: ch2 at February 20, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINK"Creationism is a religious doctrine without scientific evidence or sceitnfic support. Teaching religion in public schools violates the First Amendment. It certainly is taking away liberties." The "establishment clause" has been expanded into areas the founders would not recognize. This must mean that the Congress is in violation when they open their session with a prayer, money should not have "In God We Trust", we should not swear on bibles or say "So Help Me God" when taking office. Teaching religion in public school is gone unless you count
environmentalism as a religion. The point of my post was that the danger
is exploited by fund raising groups like NOW. That statement was
actually made by Ralph Nader in 2000. What you choose to be frightened
of is up to you. I think it's a minor issue but agree that creationism
is not science. "Intelligent Design" is actually not a problem for me
even though I'm agnostic. Mike K, I don't see what part of saying "creationism is not science" is hype. Second, it is scary to most reasonable people not because any rights are being taken away, but because it's about as sound as teaching that the Earth is flat, the universe revolves around us and Sun goddess is chasing the Moon goddess: it's garbage. Third, what does the National Organization for Women have to do with creationism ? You probably left out a sentence or two, but I can't guess what they were. Posted by: ch2 at February 20, 2004 05:33 PM | PERMALINKThis is truly awful, and the regular media outlets don't talk about it. Perhaps Bill Moyers can do it, and if enough people in top science push it to NPR, we could get it there. One thing to remember about stuff like this: if enough people call in to shows like Alan Colmes (big audience but fair change of getting in), write letters to the big newspapers, pop science mags, etc, it raises the profile. Many of those "skeptic" people hate this sort of anti-science: if we can get them off religion-psychic obsession and to realize the political component, some will publicize this. Ironic, how this confirms the very worst stereotype of the conservative as irrational and stupid, yet proud and belligerent about it. There must be some virtuous conservatives out there who hate what is going on. (There are in fact many non-liberal commentators who are hitting this absurdity, like Arthur Silber of http://blog.light-of-reason.com. You don't need to agree with his overall perspective to appreciate his sharp jabs.) Posted by: Neil at February 20, 2004 07:27 PM | PERMALINK"Intelligent Design" is actually not a problem for me even though I'm agnostic. Mike K Everyone should have the right to seek and choose their faith (or not). I say if a person wants to believe in creationism or intelligent design that is there right. But intelligent design is in no way science. This is an important distinction when considering what to teach the people that will determine our future. I have to say that I do and have known a fair number of very rational, compassionate (not the perverted Bush version), intelligent, and thoughtful conservatives. They do exist and to the best of my knowledge are disgusted with what's happening. Posted by: JimmiRayBob at February 20, 2004 08:13 PM | PERMALINKMike K, The link that you posted is a long complex document - I'll look at it more closely. But, the conclusion of the document reads... "8. DCSD's position On the basis of the material adduced by the complainants, and particularly the assessment in Scientific American, DCSD deems it to have been adequately substantiated that the defendant, who has himself insisted on presenting his publication in scientific form and not allowing the book to assume the appearance of a provocative debate-generating paper, based on customary scientific standards and in light of his systematic onesidedness in the choice of data and line of argument, has clearly acted at variance with good scientific practice. Subject to the proviso that the book is to be evaluated as science, there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty-cf. Danish Order No. 533 of 15 December 1998-have been met. In consideration of the extraordinarily wide-ranging scientific topics dealt with by the defendant without having any special scientific expertise, however, DCSD has not found-or felt able to procure-sufficient grounds to deem that the defendant has misled his readers deliberately or with gross negligence. In accordance herewith and subject to the proviso that the book under review is to be evaluated as science, DCSD has arrived at the following Ruling: Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bj?rn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice." I'm not sure of your point. "...simply proposed an alternative that was more supported in science than Rachel Carson's science in Silent Spring" ??? What am I missing? Was there some kind of "gross negligence" involved? This could be grounds for severence.
The "establishment clause" has been expanded into areas the founders would not recognize. The Founders were perfectly capable of recognizing "areas" likke religion, science and public expenditure. It is fraudulent to promote Creationism as a scientific theoryy when it is clearly a religious interpretation of a relligious text. Posted by: Roger Bigod at February 21, 2004 01:38 AM | PERMALINKWell, this report certainly echos Bill O'Lielly's question: "Who is looking out for you?" And the answer is: "certainly not the Bush administration, that's for sure." Well, then, whom are they looking out for? $$$$$$$$+christian votes. F-them. Posted by: chica toxica at February 21, 2004 10:09 AM | PERMALINKI assume everybody here then is in favor of increased use of nuclear energy? Last time I mentioned it around here the most prominent arguments against are that "radioactivity is dangerous because it's dangerous" and that complex systems should never be trusted. The complexity of nuclear reactors is due to large size and nuclear reactors don't have to be huge, especially if we don't elect a trial lawyer as President. Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at February 21, 2004 09:38 PM | PERMALINKJoseph: The Union of Concerned Scientists used their great analytical minds to determine the world would run out of gasoline by 1980.....so how can Bush be distorting the facts of global warming when we haven't had any gas for over 20 years???? Posted by: chris at April 8, 2004 09:40 AM | PERMALINKOnline Casino : Virtual City Casino - Vegas Palms Casino - Fortune Room Casino - All Poker Casino - The Sands Casino - 49ER Casino - Show Down Casino - Vegas Towers Casino - 7 Sultans Casino - River Bella Casino - Online Casino Bonus - Penis enlargement pills - casino 3k Internet Shareware: Evidence Eliminator - Internet Eraser - History Kill Posted by: Virtual City Casino at July 1, 2004 12:04 AM | PERMALINKVery good subject. 6883 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 05:24 PM | PERMALINK1893 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 4131 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 11:57 AM | PERMALINK219 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 08:07 PM | PERMALINK
Posted by: pocket bikes at August 13, 2004 03:29 AM | PERMALINK 458 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 13, 2004 07:32 PM | PERMALINK4742 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 07:28 PM | PERMALINK6033 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 17, 2004 03:23 AM | PERMALINK7209 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 295 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 11:54 PM | PERMALINK6411 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 5174 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 02:59 PM | PERMALINK4371 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 09:48 PM | PERMALINK188 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 09:19 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
