Perverting science for politics

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[Beestie]

Bush removed the page for any study that he disagreed with from US government websites.

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.

[Troubleshooter]

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

[Beestie]

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.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Beestie
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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Beestie
But an article in a respected media outlet would suffice (please no Ananova). I have heard this before and I would like some corroboration.

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.

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by Beestie
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.

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.

[Beestie]

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]

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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

[Happy Monkey]

Logging policy.

[tw]

Originally posted by Beestie
What I didn't find was anyone outside of the White House who disputed the allegation.

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:

when scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions.

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.

From The Economist of 10 April 2004:
There is a wide-spread feeling among scientists that Mr Bush is ignoring scietific results and opinions he does not like in other areas, too. In August 2003, the House of Representative Committtee on Government Reform made claims similar to those of the UCS report.

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.

[cowhead]

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

[tw]

from NY Times of 23 April 2004 Science Group Says U.S. Budget Plan Would Harm Research

The nation's largest general science group said Thursday that the Bush administration's proposed budget for the next five years could cut research financing at 21 of the 24 federal agencies that engage in it.
...
Mr. Koizumi said he projected that the lower spending would continue from 2005 to 2009 and "leave key programs with budgets well below recent historical levels."
...
For instance, he said, federal budgets would decline 15.9 percent for earth science over the next five years, 16.2 percent for aeronautics, 11.8 percent for biological and physics research, 21 percent for energy-supply research, and 11.3 percent for agriculture research. Research budgets would drop 15 percent at the Environmental Projection Agency, 10.5 percent at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 4.7 percent at the National Science Foundation, a federal agency that supports a diversity of fundamental investigations.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.