Perverting science for politics
 

http://volokh.com/2004_02_29_volokh_...16189223019167

The Bush administration establishes a bioethics policy panel to tell it what to do about the serious issues of the day, and then simply removes the people on it who favor stem cell research.

What did you expect?

Well, not you personally UT, I meant "you" in general.

Call me cynical, but it doesn't surprise me a bit. It's completely in character--almost to be expected--for this administration. Figure out what you want to do, then highlight any source that supports that course of action while sending your plumbers to trash any source that doesn't agree.

American Republicans deserve a better candidate to represent their party. Too bad neither party would ever allow a nomination challenge to be mounted against a sitting president.

This is not unique.

The Republicans' problem is that most of the issues they have that get their voting base fired up are "moral" issues which are essentially religious in nature. Their base is still small enough that they have to make arguments which don't rely on religion alone, but there are no other arguments. So they have to make up some "scientific" studies to support their ideology.

Most of the other issues they have are the ones that energize their donating base - large corporate interests. These issues are usually irrelevant or harmful to anybody but the corporate interests, so they have to make up a "scientific" study to deflect complaints.

Democrats pander to their bases as well, but they usually don't have to corrupt research studies to do so.

Anyonee that lives under a 'democratic' system that requires candidates to raise in excess of 100 million dollars to win should not be shocked when those elected happily bend the country to be used however those that lent that money want. Happy Monkey is right on the money.

I mean christ, being elected in the US costs more than almost the entire of the rest of G8 for crying out loud. Then you have people turning round wondering why you live in a corperate fascist state with no respect for the truth.

Yes, I am in a bad mood today, why do you ask?

Several departments of USF were under the threat of having their funding pulled, recently. Why? They didn't push a "mainly abstience-only policy".

Bush's No-Condom Education

Morals are great and all, but I don't think you can change many people's minds on this subject. Putting their health at risk isn't the correct way to go about it, either.

Given this political move, some states are aggressively, legislatively going after PHds and biotech jobs by courting private funding for research. U of Minnesota's Stem Cell Institute and Dr. Vervaillie just got a big private grant- Medtronic I think, to continue research. So then another issue is that private $, corporate entities are funding and "owning" research conducted in public universities...What scientific information, discovery should be public?

Is Bush's move making both the religious right and biotech corporations happy?

Everything is not what it would appear to be. A little digging reveals the original list of 17 people (a mix of scientists, medical experts, lawyers, journalists, etc.)

The original 17

And here is the list as it stands today.

A quick comparison of the lists reveals the following two people dropped off the list:

Gilbert Meilaender, Ph.D and his bio: Gilbert Meilaender, Ph.D. Richard & Phyllis Duesenberg Professor of Christian Ethics at Valparaiso University. Professor Meilaender is an editor for the Journal of Religious Ethics and the Religious Studies Review . He takes a special interest in bioethics and is a Fellow of the Hastings Center. His books include Body, Soul, and Bioethics (1995) and Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (1997).

and

Stephen Carter, J.D. William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Yale Law School. Professor Carter teaches constitutional law and law and religion. His recent books include God's Name in Vain (2000), Civility (1998), and Integrity (1996).


A quick Google on each reveals the following:

Dr. Meilaender favors of stem cell research?? This article clearly demonstrates that he does NOT support stem cell research and resents being characterized as unsympathetic to the suffering of those whose suffering, it is alleged, would be relieved by the fruits of such research.

As for Mr. Carter, well, I found this on Slate, (a propoganda arm of the right-wing media outlet MSNBC :-)
Here is the article in its entirety which while not shedding any light on Mr. Carter's position on stem cell research, does shed light on his absence from the panel.

Lastly, here is an article that would seem to indicate that the panel wasn't exactly a partisan group interested in coronating a pre-ordained outcome.
Given all this, I am forced to call bullshit on the blog"truth." It appears that the absence of the two members from the current make up of the panel was not, in any way that I can verify, related to their positions on stem cell research.

Jesus B, good digging.

Meilaender is on both lists. Why do you think he's been dropped?

Kass denies it (WaPo, registration req'd):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Mar2.html

I don't know why this is pissing me off as much as it is. I guess its the whole blog = truth thing that I've seen enough of. I mean, even without knowing any panelist's position on STR the blog truth still comes up empty.

Firstly, if the panelists were truly dismissed because of their position on stem cell research, then they wouldn't have been appointed in the first place.

Secondly, from the bios of the two missing people, it is clear that they are devout Christians who, as a rule, do not support stem cell research.

Thirdly, if they really are opposed to stem cell research and really were dismissed as a consequence of that, then that implies that the remaining 15 are opposed to it or else they, too, would have been dismissed. So from that one must further conclude that the panel was 15-2 opposed to STR before the two panelists were replaced and further conclude that 15-2 was not good enough so Bush cleaned house to get 17-0.

Sorry, not today.

[/soapbox]

Cuz I'm blind as a bat. Good catch. I had both pages open and was doing a visual matchup to find the differences. I went back and checked again and you are right. I could only find that Carter was missing on the current list . Then I realized (thanks to you) that the original list has 18 names but the current list only has 17 (only Carter dropped).

So, I can't tell who else dropped. The 2nd list is dated Jan 2004 so I'll have to dig some more.

Thanks for catching the error.

Sure they do.

Each side has their own "think tanks" and "interest groups" ... and picks and chooses how to present their research to make their points.

If you need an actual example check out the Violence Policy Center.

You're right, of course. I should have said that they do it less frequently. And, in any case, Bush does it more than anyone in US history.

No, you just don't notice it as much when the "data" is proving your own position on the issues.

Without doing an exhaustive meta-analysis I suspect that both sides are perverting science equally.

Except John Lott, of course.

Bush is the first president to start censoring out the results as they come in from federal science institutions. Bush removed the page for any study that he disagreed with from US government websites. This is a whole diferent ballgame from taking the special-interest study results as they come in.

I'm gonna need direct evidence of that (please, no blogs). Ideally, a link to both the the government website copy and the science website copy of whatever finding was altered. But an article in a respected media outlet would suffice (please no Ananova). I have heard this before and I would like some corroboration.

Bush dismisses council members
 

This page has lots and lots of links on it. References galore.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scientific groups angry at loss of Elizabeth Blackburn from group considering stem cells | By Maria Anderson

US President George W. Bush dismissed two members of his President's Council on Bioethics last Friday afternoon in a move that has been dubbed a “very ill-advised decision” by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) president Bettie Sue Masters.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040303/04

Edit: just added a few words

Thanks, TS, that is the link I was looking for yesterday but apparently wasn't Googlefied yet.

Looks like I focused on the wrong members of the council and it appears the original concern that the Council is stacked appears to be a valid one.

That is extremely disheartening.

Thanks. I get so many, and such a varied list, of newsletters that it's only a matter of time before a topic gets picked up in one, or many, of them.

And I agree, disheartening, but not surprising.

I'm just sitting around waiting for the revolution at this point.

ANWR wildlife maps: LA Times Text LA Times link (pay for archive) Wired News

Sex education: NYT Text NYT link (pay for archive)


And here is a collection. This is not an unbiased source - Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) - but it is a good list for reasearch purposes.

Politics and Science in the Bush Adminsitration is a good place to start. Since it's produced by Congressional Democrats, it's obviously not free from suspicion of bias. However, it is copiously footnoted and usually provides the "before" and "after" information when it discusses web site changes.

I actually went through and read quite a few of the linked articles (thanks) and, in particular, comments by former admin officials going all the way back to the Nixon administration including officials in the first Bush administration.

[head shaking]
What I didn't find was anyone outside of the White House who disputed the allegation. That's just flat out irresponsible.
[/head shaking]

Like so many of Bush's failings, he doesn't dispute it. He considers it a strength. And who knows, politically he may be right. I hope not.

And here's a big one. EPA air quality.

More damning facts say same. 60 prominent scientists published an open letter on 18 February. Many had been involved in science policy for both Republican and Democratic administrations. The letter was blunt: Then the Union of Concerned Scientists chimed in separately to provide many more damning examples of such manipulation from Stem Cell research to the nonsensical Anti-ballistic missile system. Even the nuclear bunker buster bomb.

William Howard was turned down as a member of the Army Science Board because he might have contributed to the presidential campaign of John McCain. Actually another William Howard made the contribution; the administration was confused but would quash science because someone might have contributed to a Republican who is "not on the team". More examples of clearly underqualfieid candidates only because of their political beliefs are listed.

Manipulation of science for political agenda is so widespread that one must even ask if Hubble is being sacrificed to promote a silly man to Mars mission. A queston asked only because so much science is being perverted by administration political agenda.

The State Department's Arms Control and Non-proliferation Advsory Group was disbanded because it represented a threat to the President's political agenda. Not true, says Dr Marburger (presidential science advisor who was dispatched to disagree with the UCS). Technically Dr Marburger is correct. Just that the administration has forgotten to fund the Advisory Group for 32 months. We are to believe this little oversight has been ongoing for more than a year? People should have no problem seeing an administration spin and coverup here as well.

It does not stop there. Supporters of 'good' science are under attack by these right wing religious extremists. One is Arlene Specter, republican PA Senator who is challenged by a darling of the administration - Pat Toomey.

One reason suggested for less funding on quantum physics is that those scientific results are in direct contradiction to Genesis. How dare we challenge teachings of the Bible. Slowly, more advanced physic research is moving to Europe and Japan where funding request need not be written to avoid religious overtones. Can we point fingers at specific lawmakers? No. But many science projects based on concepts contrary to Genesis have suddenly lost funding only recently. One example cited here is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) which would have asked questions about the Big Bang - a concept that violates Genesis.

Money on quantum physics contrary to Genesis is said by some to be diminishing. By themselves, these claims would be nothing more than speculation. But these claims are consistent with what the UCS and those 60 prominent scientists have said.

The administraton does distort science to promote their religious beliefs and political agendas. But then this administration would even lie about an Iraq war, about funding for Medicaid perscription plan - even that they had no idea of an Al Qaeda attack involving hijacked planes and buildings.

Clearly this administration would subvert science for their own self serving ambitions as just too many publications and science organizations say - even a recent article by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers - IEEE.

report...
 

I expect politicians to lie to us, that's what they do.. It's in the nature of the game, however this is just plain wrong. there was a post above asking for the information on the distortions that the current admin is doing, well.. here's a link to Henry Waxmans' report on what' what and suchlike (you'll need acrobat.. which somehow I am assuming that everyone on this board is comp-literate enough to own a copy of :)) )

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/poli...nce/report.htm

and here's a direct link to all glorious 32 pages of it

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/poli...cience_rep.pdf

happy reading.. it made me really really angry when I read it

Nothing new or unexpected here. George Jr knows we are wasting time with silly science when we should be sending men to Mars. After all he knows. He has an MBA degree.

You'll probably say it isn't possible, but could it be that the bugets were bloated to begin with. A ten year old can whine that Dad cut his allowance 25%, when in fact it was cut from $1,000 to $750 per week. When they talk of % funding cuts it leaves us without enough information.:confused:

You know, I'm really beginning to think we should have some continuing education or retesting requirement on those things. If 80-year-old drivers in Florida can be retested to see if they still can drive, can't we find some way to retest GWB to find out if he remembered anything from Economics 101.

Nice one Happy Monkey. Thats a fascinating read.

Clearly the president has knowledge beyond that found in science. Where is all this hydrogen to come from? Will we just drill into the earth for it? IOW this president thinks you a fool. All he need do is put up some neat sound bytes and we will believe him?

In the meantime, enemies of god's choosen - Scientific American and Industrial Physicist -explain many problems with hydrogen fuels. God's laws exist such as Laws of Energy Conservation, and Thermodynamics. For example 4 cycle automobile automobile engines will never use more than 40% of the energy consumed in doing productive work. Basic thermodynamics principles cannot be violated no matter how George Jr interpretes the bible.

Manufacturing and distributing hydrogen to cars as fuel will mean somewhere between 78% and 92% of the energy will be lost - does no productive work. Inefficiencies because of so many energy conversions, gas compression, massive structures to contain hydrogen at those exteme pressures, leakage, etc. That is the problem with science. God does not decree a solution. Hydrogen is promoted by George Jr as a fuel just as he sees a 'man to Mars' as advanced science.

Bottom line - Hydrogen is not an acceptable fuel. It will never create energy independence. The solution to energy problems is conservation and efficiency. 30 years after they developed the technology, GM still did not use 70 Horsepower per liter engines in all vehicle (even though Honda and Toyota do). Why does George Jr not address that problem? Therein lies a major problem making the US energy dependent.

George Jr instead gives GM $millions - a gift - no strings attached - just to do the hybrid research that Honda and Toyota had been doing for years. Where does that solve the problem? (It means more legalized bribed from GM will appear in George Jr's campaign chest).

We have a problem. We need people educated in reality to make decisions and empower innovators. George Jr lies. He says Hydrogen fueled vehicles will be a solution. How curious. Anyone with real world knowledge is not saying that. Why does George Jr know better? Maybe god told him? Openly questioning either the intelligence or honesty of this president - because first I examine the facts rather than wait for god to tell me.

Clearly the administration knows better than scientists. Review the votes by scientists. But the president was, after all, choosen by god:
The religious concept is that a 'morning after' pill causes an abortion. It is a fetus the millisecond a male ejaculates. After all, only god has the right to determine whether a baby is created. Therefore 27 unanimous scientists must be wrong. Screw the civil rights of women. God's choosen administration knows which religious beliefs must be imposed upon the people.

I don't see a problem here, Monkey. If we had a bunch of zoos cranking out thousands of tigers per year, then tigers shouldn't be on the endangered list.
But the Greenies say it's not about fish, it's about logging and development. It's really about habitat. Well then say so, god damn it. I'm just as tired of the greenies, as I am of the gumint, being deceptive about the real goals. If you want my support, talk straight.:mad:

It's like saying wolves couldn't be endangered as long as there are dogs.

No, dogs, while genetically similar are not wolves.

If would be the same if the wolf refuges were involved in breeding programs and releasing wolves to the wild. Oh, wait, they are. That's why there are wolves in Yellowstone again.

The salmon are still salmon.

From the link
I have a problem with this person putting fish up as the problem when they really have a problem with logging, dams and sprawl. Maybe we should just evacuate the upper half of the west coast so the fish are not disturbed. Granted fish are a tougher sell than cute mammals but lets keep it real. If the problem is running out of salmon, the problem is solved. If the issue is something else, say so.;)

Cracks in the United Front
 

Nancy Reagan Calls for Stem Cell Research

Well, when the first lady of one of the most beloved (by his own party) presidents of the United States challenges the Bush Adminstration, who will win.

After five decades, they finally got a president that could be bought. Any of you George Jr lovers want to defend the mental midget president on this one? How does Rush Limbaugh deal with this? Or does he simply do what George Jr also does best - ignore facts he does not like.

I got the impression that it wasn't a health endorsement but one for legal and contractual purposes. Since french fries need to be frozen, they are asserting that the freezing does not mean they are not fresh. This is the same as how a 'fresh' turkey can be rock hard, just not frozen to a certain point.

I suppose "We The People" pay if they do, and the frozen food people want a piece of the action.:(

French fries do not need to be frozen. Things only need to be frozen if you are not going to use them fresh (ice cream notwithstanding).

Here's their argument:

As an outsider (Aussie), I am confused as to how and why John Kerry seems to be so ineffective against Bush. Many of you have cited cases of the Bush administration corrupting information, and looking after corporate interests rather than the nation's, and if one believes even just some of the arguments against Bush, it seems difficult to imagine that Kerry would not win in a landslide in November.

Kerry's argument in favour of stem cell research http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...004_0612a.html seems very wishy-washy to me. Surely he could be making a stronger point. From what I have heard in the media, Kerry has not been hurting Bush's credibility at all.

I have been getting the impression that Bush is likely to hold on in November because many potential anti Bush voters won't bother to vote, and that he has strong support in the mid-west. Is this true?

bluesdave, I'm an aussie expat, just wondering, do you think Latham is going to win? I haven't had time to check the news for a fair while now.

The word is that he doesn't have a chance (much like John Kerry over there). While most people now believe that Iraq was a mistake, and believe that John Howard lied to us, they still see Howard as a strong leader, and while the Aussie economy continues to hum along, it will be nearly impossible to dislodge him.

The only hope that Mark Latham has is if there is some sort of huge controversy that entangles Howard. The die hard Labor supporters all believe that Latham can win, but I can't see it happening without some external influence assisting him. Latham has also made a few faux pas over recent months which haven't helped his image.

=(

I liked latham, any politician that feels it's ok to call the prime minister an arse licker is worth his weight in gold in my book. I don't think I have to but I'll post in my vote, it'll make me feel better.

Howard Dean on the subject.

LOL this cracks me up....

Ya'll know my stance on evolution, and that most of the "proofs" provided in science textbooks have been disproven scientifically, and that the age of the earth gets older my millions of years at a rate of 2.1 million years a year...

...and all these evidences are ignored, including by Mr. Dean.

oh, the irony....

Open minded people go to....

http://www.answersingenesis.org

And yet, the age of the earth doesn't change a bit for the creationists, no matter what scientific evidence is available.

Are you seriously trying to say that the fact that science recognizes and corrects its errors is a weakness?

Originally posted by OnyxCougar Hmmm.

If science itself is flawed then science can't be used to disprove it, no? That's having it both ways.

Sometimes I consider the irony of Bush's efforts to smash theocracies abroad while seemingly trying to build one at home. The big problem with the White House implementing Christian doctrine is that they have police power to back it up. Isn't that contrary to the notion of religious freedom? What if Bush were a Muslim? A Jew? A Scientologist? A zealous athiest? Nothing against any of those religions/belief systems but I don't want their rituals imposed upon me. When is it ok versus not ok? The founding fathers already put that question to bed.

I have two small children. I tell them that God created the world, them and Mommy and Daddy. When they get older, I will attempt to explain the method God employed to do so. I find no inconsistency between faith and science and struggle with the assertion that there is one. Science does not venture into the realm of faith. If faith had the discipline to do likewise (e.g., know its boundaries) , we'd all be a lot better off.

"The Bible—the ‘history book of the universe’—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the ‘evidence’ confirms the biblical account."

They can't be serious...

That my friend, is wishful thinking.:(

It's not surprising as much as disapointing.

Their point, I believe, is that they take themselves seriously.

Probably all too seriously.

A friend and I started a little discussion about that site and one of the points that came out was what about the parts that were lifted from other religions? Doesn't that make them just as valid, and true, as christianity?

One major problem with the Bush administration is their habit of appointing lobbyists to positions of authority. That's bad enough, but the lobbyists they appoint are the lobbyists for the industry/group that the position is supposed to regulate. Here's the latest example.

A lobbyist for "Safari Club International" in charge of the Fish and Wildlife Service.