Politics Over Science?

Whether or not you buy in to the global warming or extinct species deals, the trend of policy trumping science and the pressure to bury results is troubling.

Of course if a scientist were to say the world was flat or that intelligent design was the way to go, he/she would be honored at a White House sponsored "Ignorance is Good" party and prayer session.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/21...e.ap/index.html

From CNN.COM

Scientists feel stifled by Bush administration
Monday, February 21, 2005 Posted: 2:46 PM EST (1946 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration, with fewer scientists heard in policy discussions and money for research and advanced training being cut, according to panelists at a national science meeting.

Speakers at the national meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science expressed concern Sunday that some scientists in key federal agencies are being ignored or even pressured to change study conclusions that don't support policy positions.

The speakers also said that Bush's proposed 2005 federal budget is slashing spending for basic research and reducing investments in education designed to produce the nation's future scientists.

And there also was concern that increased restrictions and requirements for obtaining visas is diminishing the flow to the U.S. of foreign-born science students who have long been a major part of the American research community.

Rosina Bierbaum, dean of the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, said the Bush administration has cut scientists out of some of the policy-making processes, particularly on environmental issues.

"In previous administrations, scientists were always at the table when regulations were being developed," she said. "Science never had the last voice, but it had a voice."

Issues on global warming, for instance, that achieved a firm scientific consensus in earlier years are now being questioned by Bush policy makers. Proven, widely accepted research is being ignored or disputed, she said.

Government policy papers issued prior to the Bush years moved beyond questioning the validity of global warming science and addressed ways of confronting or dealing with climate change.

Under Bush, said Bierbaum, the questioning of the proven science has become more important than finding ways to cope with climate change.

One result of such actions, said Neal Lane of Rice University, a former director of the National Science Foundation, is that "we don't really have a policy right now to deal with what everybody agrees is a serious problem."

Among scientists, said Lane, "there is quite a consensus in place that the Earth is warming and that humans are responsible for a considerable part of that" through the burning of fossil fuels.

And the science is clear, he said, that without action to control fossil fuel use, the warming will get worse and there will be climate events that "our species has not experienced before."

Asked for comment, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said, "The president makes policy decisions based on what the best policies for the country are, not politics. People who suggest otherwise are ill-informed."

Kurt Gottfried of Cornell University and the Union of Concerned Scientists said a survey of scientists in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that about 42 percent said they felt pressured to not report publicly any findings that do not agree with Bush policies on endangered species.

He said almost a third of the Fish and Wildlife researchers said they were even pressured not to express within the agency any views in conflict with the Bush policies.

"This administration has distanced itself from scientific information," said Gottfried. He said this is part of a larger effort to let politics dominate pure science.

He said scientists in the Environmental Protection Agency have been pressured to change their research to keep it consistent with the Bush political position on environmental issues.

Because of such actions, he said, it has become more difficult for federal agencies to attract and retain top scientific talent. This becomes a critical issue, said Gottfried, because about 35 percent of EPA scientists will retire soon and the Bush administration can "mold the staff" of the agency through the hiring process.

Federal spending for research and development is significantly reduced under the proposed 2005 Bush budget, the speakers said.

"Overall the R&D budget is bad news," said Bierbaum.

She said the National Science Foundation funds for graduate students and for kindergarten through high school education has been slashed.

NASA has gotten a budget boost, but most of the new money will be going to the space shuttle, space station and Bush's plan to explore the moon and Mars. What is suffering is the space agency's scientific research efforts, she said.

"Moon and Mars is basically going to eat everybody's lunch," she said.

Lane said Bush's moon and Mars exploration effort has not excited the public and has no clear goals or plans.

He said Bush's moon-Mars initiative "was poorly carried out and the budget is not there to do the job so science (at NASA) will really get hurt."

"Asked for comment, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said, "The president makes policy decisions based on what the best policies for the country are, not politics. People who suggest otherwise are ill-informed."

Is the man terminally stupid? How is it possible to make the best policies for the country, if the people who know the answers to the problems are kept out of the process?

This is fascism at work. In the thirties, Stalin had maps of moscow printed that showed all the beautiful new factories that would one day exist. They never did.

If people don't agree with bush, they are excluded from having a voice in the very real problems that exist.

Bush = Stalin

Soccermad = Charles Manson

-same stretch, same logic. You and Onetouch have become one boring person.

Reps won, get over it, move on already.

Let's talk about the points made Sunday morning by Clinton and McCain. Now THAT was interesting.

[NotInMyHouse]

I think the three of you all raise some valid points:

Yes GF - we ALL need to get over it. :wicked: You lumped SM and OT together "wrongly" in this case - with the exception of his intro - I think he raised a valid issue for discussion this time without bringing partisan issues to the forefront.

The election is over and we have to live with it - regardless of position.
MOREOVER, those on the "winning" side need to remember that "winning" an election doesnt make us "right" or "wrong" on any/every topic.

SM was right in asking......
"How is it possible to make the best policies for the country, if the people who know the answers to the problems are kept out of the process?"
add to that the question
"How do we expect answers from 'experts' when they arent given funding or control of the projects they research?" (another thread I am sure)

Science, and the scientists who research and write about it, really are the "purists" in this arena. To think that partisan issues ought to outweigh what is not disputed among researchers of all political persuasions is simply ludicrous.

We go to the doctor because he is trained, we go to the mechanic for the same reason. I've had a surgery and a broken down vehicle - neither experience made me in expert in the repair of the issue - those in elected leadership roles ought to remember that about themselves! :2cents:

Originally posted by NotInMyHouse@Feb 22 2005, 12:56 PM
I think the three of you all raise some valid points:

Yes GF - we ALL need to get over it. :wicked: You lumped SM and OT together "wrongly" in this case - with the exception of his intro - I think he raised a valid issue for discussion this time without bringing partisan issues to the forefront.

The election is over and we have to live with it - regardless of position.
MOREOVER, those on the "winning" side need to remember that "winning" an election doesnt make us "right" or "wrong" on any/every topic.

SM was right in asking......
"How is it possible to make the best policies for the country, if the people who know the answers to the problems are kept out of the process?"
add to that the question
"How do we expect answers from 'experts' when they arent given funding or control of the projects they research?" (another thread I am sure)

Science, and the scientists who research and write about it, really are the "purists" in this arena. To think that partisan issues ought to outweigh what is not disputed among researchers of all political persuasions is simply ludicrous.

We go to the doctor because he is trained, we go to the mechanic for the same reason. I've had a surgery and a broken down vehicle - neither experience made me in expert in the repair of the issue - those in elected leadership roles ought to remember that about themselves! :2cents:

A little less caffeine for you, NIMH.

The point is the the tireless tirades of by these two posters. That is why they are "lumped" together - that was a cumulative response. Each and every tiny little misstep by the current administration - no matter what - is magnified and raked across the coals, and frankly it is just plain boring after a while. .

Lookit, let me make an analogy for you. There is signal...and there is noise. I don't mind the signal, but the relentless noise detracts. I'm sure it gets to others, but I am in no way speaking for them. There is substantial validity in what SM and OT say, but it is the constant droning, attack-dog style in how it is said that is irksome, tiresome and childish. That's the noise.

And it is quite silly for you to deliver chiding remarks about being on winning and losing sides, and right v. wrong. What you said isn't normally stated in groups beyond high school age because it is so blatantly self-evident that it never needs to be said.

Now go back to your double espresso and work one up.

[sportzmom]

here is a different perspective from the CNN report.

A new environmentalism

Published February 21, 2005


Almost 35 years after the first Earth Day, U.S. environmentalists are in a fix. Membership and donations are up for many organizations, but broad support for the movement appears to be stagnant, if not retreating.

In the last four years, membership in the Sierra Club increased by 22 percent. Revenues and membership in other environmental groups also grew, apparently mobilized in opposition to Bush administration environmental policies.

Yet there are not many recent accomplishments environmental organizations can claim for all that influx of money and members.

There may even be an erosion of public enthusiasm for environmental causes. The number of Americans willing to accept higher levels of pollution to preserve jobs increased to 26 percent in 2000, from 17 percent four years earlier, according to a survey by the Canada-based polling firm Environics Research Group. The number of people who perceived environmentalists as "extremists" rather than "reasonable" jumped to 41 percent from 32 percent. Americans by wide margins say they support environmental causes, but when pressed to pick their 10 highest concerns, the environment doesn't make the cut.

The tactics of environmentalists aren't working. Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus have a better idea.

"When you look at the string [of] global warming defeats under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, it is hard not to conclude that the environmental movement's approach to problems and policies has not worked particularly well," they wrote in a paper presented to an environmental donors conference last fall.

So, what's their alternative? They argue that environmentalists should be working closely with business and political leaders to understand their views and jointly promote policies that will improve our air and water.

Shellenberger is a political strategist and executive director of the Breakthrough Institute, a self-styled progressive organization that seeks to learn from and adopt political strategies that have been successful for conservatives. Nordhaus is vice president of Evans/McDonough, an opinion research firm. They have played a central role in the Apollo Alliance, an organization that emphasizes the need for public-private participation rather than "command-and-control regulations" to promote environmental causes.

Mainline environmentalists should listen.

"Environmentalists find that their greatest audiences are themselves," says Adam Werbach, executive director of the Common Assets Defense Fund. "At this point we are in fact moving backwards. The problems we saw in the 1970s have been largely fixed. There is a whole new set of problems that we have no capacity to affect because we don't speak to the American people. Speaking to ourselves doesn't work."

Groups such as Greenpeace continue dramatic protests, like climbing on the stack of a coal-burning plant to hang a protest banner. According to the new environmental model, they should factor the concerns of, and negotiate with, stockholders, workers, electric ratepayers and coal miners who might be affected by a decision to shut down the plant or a mandate that it install expensive anti-pollution equipment.

Take the debate over corporate auto fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards. The first CAFE rules were adopted in 1975 at the behest of Ford Motor Co. and the United Auto Workers, which were afraid that more fuel-efficient Japanese cars might erode market share of the Big Three. Environmentalists now want more stringent CAFE standards, but not much effort has been made to bring skittish labor unions and automakers to the table and hammer out a compromise, much less to take the cause to the public.

Fuel efficiency standards are at the center of the debate over global warming. But legislation pending in Congress to set more gradual and modest greenhouse gas reductions in the U.S. faces long odds of passage.

Environmental organizations need to realize the tactics of the 1970s do not work today. Just look at the results.

chicagotribune.com

btw
I concur w/Garman's latest post.
ho hum.

[NotInMyHouse]

WOW - with responses like that no wonder the only return visitors you get here are OT and SM - one would have to be crazy to assume that you were open to a "new" aka different opinion.

"The point is the the tireless tirades of by these two posters. That is why they are "lumped" together - that was a cumulative response. Each and every tiny little misstep by the current administration - no matter what - is magnified and raked across the coals, and frankly it is just plain boring after a while. ."
Not the point of the thread - if you want to rail on OT & SM incessantly feel free to do so...(heck there are topics on which i would likely join you) However, that wasnt the topic at hand and yet your constant "noise" is to throw that into EVERY debate.


"And it is quite silly for you to deliver chiding remarks about being on winning and losing sides, and right v. wrong. What you said isn't normally stated in groups beyond high school age because it is so blatantly self-evident that it never needs to be said."
As is your constant - "We won get over it" - the pre-school equivalent of nanny-nanny-nanny... :P

You clearly missed the point that if ANY of these political, social, moral, issues are going to be had in this forum (or any other) so that people are heard and potentially understood, the "we won you lost - get over it" AND the "we hate everything the current administration does because of who it is" positions have to be left aside. (heaven knows my reason for entering into the debate isnt to change anyone's mind, but rather to gain better insight into the breadth of opinions out there)

You attack me and forgo giving any opinion regarding the state of Science in America as presented by the science community itself?

For the record, it isnt less caffeine that I need. Lets not start on the avatars - or havent you had a look at your own lately?!?!?

Originally posted by Garman Freidlander@Feb 22 2005, 12:22 PM
Bush = Stalin

Soccermad = Charles Manson

-same stretch, same logic. You and Onetouch have become one boring person.

Reps won, get over it, move on already.

Let's talk about the points made Sunday morning by Clinton and McCain. Now THAT was interesting.

freeloader, why don't you either debate a point or start your own posts. I didn't say bush was like stalin. Your ignorance is now complete, comparing me to manson, just shows how stupid and scared you are.

Clinton and McCain was interesting, why don't you say something constructive, like 'I found them to be interesting, because???...

Fox had mashed your brain.

Originally posted by NotInMyHouse@Feb 22 2005, 12:56 PM
I think the three of you all raise some valid points:

Yes GF - we ALL need to get over it. :wicked: You lumped SM and OT together "wrongly" in this case - with the exception of his intro - I think he raised a valid issue for discussion this time without bringing partisan issues to the forefront.

The election is over and we have to live with it - regardless of position.
MOREOVER, those on the "winning" side need to remember that "winning" an election doesnt make us "right" or "wrong" on any/every topic.

SM was right in asking......
"How is it possible to make the best policies for the country, if the people who know the answers to the problems are kept out of the process?"
add to that the question
"How do we expect answers from 'experts' when they arent given funding or control of the projects they research?" (another thread I am sure)

Science, and the scientists who research and write about it, really are the "purists" in this arena. To think that partisan issues ought to outweigh what is not disputed among researchers of all political persuasions is simply ludicrous.

We go to the doctor because he is trained, we go to the mechanic for the same reason. I've had a surgery and a broken down vehicle - neither experience made me in expert in the repair of the issue - those in elected leadership roles ought to remember that about themselves! :2cents:

It's a good point and one that i've been trying to raise since I joined this forum. The right-wingers here never debate the points, they only attack the person making the points.

I have a theory that they really know they are wrong on nearly every issue but are just programmed to speak in a certain way. If you watch fox "news' for five minutes you'll see where these people get their ideas, from second rate actors, pretending to be journalists.

And while on the subject of second-rate actors and the hatred of Hollywood by the religious-right... Isn't the republicans favorite president, a B actor from Hollywood?

Also, who can take them seriously when they'd rather follow a clown like delay who believes he's going to float up to heaven one afternoon while golfing in hawaii, rather than Dr Dean, who is far from being radical, but because he's a liberal has to endure the childish rants of the moron majority.

Let's see if anyone wants to debate...

Originally posted by sportzmom@Feb 22 2005, 01:33 PM
here is a different perspective from the CNN report.

chicagotribune.com

btw
I concur w/Garman's latest post.
ho hum.

I don't why you bother. Instead of debating the pros and cons of having scientists in meetings about scientific issues. Duh!

You post a right-wing report that says very little and then your link only works if you subscribe to the rag...

Ho-hum indeed.