Perverting science for politics

[Undertoad]

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.

[SteveDallas]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[jaguar]

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?

[Kitsune]

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.

[warch]

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?

[Beestie]

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 :-)

on June 20, Carter missed a particularly crucial meeting of the bioethics panel in order to plug his book on NBC's Today show.

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.

Dr. Foster, reporting back from the first of the council's sessions, nevertheless was "impressed by the intellectual power of the members. I expected that from resumes and reputations, but when you saw it in action you couldn't help but say this is really a smart group of people."

The first two meetings, in January and February in Washington, "were extremely professional and utterly dignified," he reported. "Every position was thoroughly heard, and there was no posturing or grandstanding. It was impressively mature, and there was never an angry rebuttal or argument." He added that "The four scientists interacted well with the non-scientists and vice versa, and I think it fair to say we all learned from each other." Dr. Kass earned Dr. Foster's praise for his demonstrated evenhandedness: "He leaned over backwards to ensure that all members participated and that all sides were heard. I felt a sense of pride in the country that it could be represented in this fashion by such a diverse group."

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.

[Undertoad]

Jesus B, good digging.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Beestie
A quick comparison of the lists reveals the following two people dropped off the list:

Gilbert Meilaender, Ph.D

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

[Undertoad]

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

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

[Beestie]

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]

[Beestie]

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

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.

[wolf]

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

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by wolf


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.

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.

[wolf]

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.