Slashdot Log In
Scientists Decry Political Interference
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Dec 14, 2006 05:25 PM
from the keep-your-hand-out-of-the-till dept.
from the keep-your-hand-out-of-the-till dept.
RamblingMan writes "According to the BBC, the American Union of Concerned Scientists has put out a statement about the misrepresentation of date and a list of such interference by the U.S. government in scientific research. Besides the usual slew of Nobel Laureate signatories, they provide a number of examples besides the well-known example of the EPA's Global Warming Report." From the BBC article: "'It's very difficult to make good public policy without good science, and it's even harder to make good public policy with bad science,' said Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security. 'In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: White House Forces Censorship of New York Times 356 comments
VE3OGG writes "It would seem that scientists are not the only ones facing censorship from the White House. According to several news sources the New York Times originally had intended to run an article co-authored by a former employee of the National Security Council, critical of the current administration's policies toward Iran. The article had passed the CIA's publication review board, but was later redacted on orders from the White House. Article authors Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann were former advisers to the White House, and thus all of their publications are scrutinized by a board before they can be published. Of the numerous documents this pair has published since leaving their positions, they say this was the first that was actively censored.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Misrepresentation of Date? (Score:3, Insightful)
And, on that note, when thinking of misrepresentation, the phrase "Slasdhot editor" comes to mind.
politics and science have always been intertwined. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:politics and science have always been intertwin (Score:5, Insightful)
Funding certain areas of scientific research instead of others is one thing; actively suppressing or ignoring the results of said research is entirely another. The executive branch has some control over what gets researched, and I'm basically OK with that; what I'm not OK with is the government's control of the results.
Parent
Re:politics and science have always been intertwin (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:politics and science have always been intertwin (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I refer you to this review [blogspot.com] of one of the more dishonest scientific episodes in recent memory, in which Patrick Michaels quite deliberately distorted Hansen's 1998 climate predictions (which, ten years later, were actually quite good). If I was Hansen I'd be pissed, too.
Care to provide any links that demonstrate with any shred of integrity why Dr. Hansen's research is crappy? And please don't waste my time with Junk Science or any other previously debunked sites.
Cheers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When writing my MS thesis, I was precise and correct and detailed. When posting on
Besides, in my post I was precise and correct; I stand by my characterization of the exec. branch having "some control" over funding, for reasons already mentioned. But I concede I didn't even need to single out the exec. branch; you win th
It amazes me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even when the press puts such statements up for rebuttal to our president, he goes around the question, dodging it and then says "...we have a lot of work to do for the American people..."
Scientific from religion to politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scientific from religion to politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that when the church was constraining science was when the church was at its most powerful politically, thus making it pretty much the same as being co-opted by politics.
It is the nature of politics -- whether the political power is exercised by democratic governments or theocratic religious institutions -- to view everything as a tool through which to pursue the politician's objectives. Rarely if ever are things like science used to define the objective. The result is that if the science says something that goes against the political objective, then it is the science that must change.
While you're right to observe that science goes on regardless, and scientific progress is made, that isn't the point. The point is that today, right now, there are decisions being made that could use the information provided by science to produce a better decision. Instead, the decision is being made first, and the science is either being ignored or twisted to support that decision. The result is beneficial for the politicians, and usually detrimental to everyone else.
If you ever needed a practical example of how facts should aid the definition of policy, rather than policy causing the redefinition of facts, simply look at Iraq. Is it yet obvious the difference between somebody's belief as to what the answer should be irrespective of facts vs the answer suggested by the real facts has profound consequences? It was the policy of the administration that the Iraqis would welcome us with roses, Democracy would flourish, and Iraq would become a shining example of hope in the Middle East. It was strongly suggested by the facts that nobody welcomes invaders, chaos would flourish particularly if there was no plan to prevent it, and Iraq would become a disaster. Today, as we struggle to come up with a plausible way of preventing the worst-case scenarios that the policy said were impossible, I think the dangers of ignoring the politicization of science are apparent.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, for the record, that was simply the last in a long line of sales pitches that the administration put before the American People, and since it stuck they've continued to act as if it was the point all along.
It should be obvious by now (and frankly it was pretty obvious then) that they never really had any interest in this a
International peace? (Score:3, Insightful)
But international peace?
The Israelis and Palestinians hate one another -- what role does science play in that?
"Well, after looking under the microscope, we now see that they don't hate one another."
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for science!
Let me know when science can solve the problem of people hating one another for generations upon generations -- oh, and when they can go MMORPG cheater and dupe Taiwan so that China finally will shut up -- then I'll be impressed.
Re:International peace? (Score:5, Funny)
Science must do its part in designing efficient LSD / Psilocybin aerosol distribution drones for weekly fly-overs of the entire Middle East until everyone chills the fuck out. That's the role I envision.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Israelis and Palestinians hate one another -- what role does science play in that?
Psychological experiments, including measurements of brain activity using NMRI gear, indicate that humans are more rationalizing than rational. I believe there's also been research which indicates deep-seated beliefs seldom undergo significant change after the age of thirty. This would suggest that any policy based on the assumption that local stability (without genocide) is likely in a scale less than decades is compl
Re:what do you expect... (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly as long as there is money/power at stake where scientific findings are concerned, there will be biased, skewed science. Scientists are no less susceptible to bribes and threats, and no less prone to intellectual whoredom than regular people.
Parent
Re:what do you expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if you look into this issue more closely you'll find that the issue is not corruption of scientists, but misuse and misrepresentation of their findings.
No scientist who acts as you imply could long remain employed as a scientist. The moment he (or she) published his (or her) findings that would be pretty much the end of it. Every published scientific study of any wide interest is peer-reviewed, scrutinized, and confirmed or refuted by many other scientists. Whenever a scientist is found to be massaging data he gets peer-reviewed into oblivion and his reputation is forever screwed. These are known in the business as "flaps" and you can find many examples of them.
Just on the practical level, consider how scientists operate in the real world. Scientists rarely work alone, and rarely are they the only individual looking into a class of phenomena. So frankly, one lone scientist with an agenda in a research group couldn't have much of an effect. You'd have to get a whole team of rogue scientists -- not an easy thing to do since Doctor Evil recruited them all to his research team back in the 60's.
In science there are few, if any, Karl Rove's. However, in politics there are plenty of reptiles anxious to suppress, distort, downplay, and misrepresent scientific findings. So this is what you get: Lackeys inserted at NASA to curtail serious climate research; findings reports edited and suppressed by the corporations that fund the research.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding me? It varies field by field, and some fields are much more susceptible to what the GP is describing. Political, medical, language science, economics, and history (just to name a few) are ones obviously influenced by all kinds of cultural and political biases. And don't tell me that these are not "real" sciences, for in each of these fields one can apply the scientific method. The only bogus science today, I think, is psychology. (Flame away, that's not my point.)
Just on the practical lev
Re:what do you expect... (Score:5, Informative)
There are huge amounts of dishonest shilling in every branch of science where there is money at stake. That's just the way of the world.
Parent
Re:what do you expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
It needs to be remembered that government isn't the only, or the most flagrant, abuser of scientific research. Commercial firms are, if anything, worse (on the average).
Also, there's a culture against the reporting of negative findings. These are just as important as positive findings, but they don't tend to qualify for publication OR for alternate forms of public exposure and preservation.
Things aren't very rosy. Computer science is, perhaps, one of the purest forms of science around. This is partially because of it's strong footing in mathematics, but even more strongly because it's easy and cheap to check out revealed algorithms and procedures. The GPL is one solid foundation here. It ensures the publication of significant results. (Negative results are still not recorded or revealed.) I tend to think of the GPL as the scientific ethos solidified into a legal structure.
Parent
Re:what do you expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:what do you expect... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:what do you expect... (Score:5, Interesting)
That may be true but it was taken to new (heights/depths) by the current administration.
When the current administration came into power and were looking for a executive to head the CDC they replaced the Nobel laureate whom was the current director. And the interview where he was removed consisted of two questions. (Second hand from a former director at Center for Disease Control)
1) Are you a republican
2) Did you vote for this president.
That explains just about everything you need to know about our current administration folks. That is the same treatment the military and other branches of government received. It helped push the administrations policies, but the person who was selected was completely incompetent. (Think FEMA) But the only criteria the administration cared about was loyalty. This absolutely destroyed the CDC. New policies included bureaucratic overview of what was considered publishable and bureaucrats deciding certain studies were flawed despite no experience in the field.
Essentially the scientists were told what results they were required to give and had to conduct studies to prove them. Pretty much all of the top scientists fled so they could actually continue doing science. The CDC parking lot is almost deserted these days. And this is one of the most important scientific establishments in the nation. (The rest of the National institute of health received similar "adjustments")
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:what do you expect... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what do you expect... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is definitely far worse than the current administrations censoring of the science done by EPA, NASA and FDA.
Parent
Re:Double standard... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the same reason you look at a label on the bottle before deciding whether to drink it... Instead of drinking something first, then deciding what it should say on the label ("joro spider toxin?")
A recent example is Iraq:
What should have been: (WMDs found?) -> (if YES, should we go to war?) -> (if YES, go to war)
Instead we got: (we want to go to war) -> (WMDs found?) -> (if NO say YES) -> (if YES, go to war)
Parent
Re:Elitist mentality (Score:5, Insightful)
The same as doctors are "special" in their duties of preserving human life (even though killing off certain patients would save our insurance companies money)
Cops are "special" in that they uphold the rule of the law and not the will of a dictator (the reason Clinton could not throw all the Republican voters in jail in this country).
Shouldn't the voters decide what the truth is?
No. Voting the Earth flat will not make it so. Evolution will not disapear no matter what people believe. It will not stop raining the moment you impeach your Local8 weatherman. Voters can make up their policy given the facts, but they should not make up the facts
Parent
Re:Elitist mentality (Score:5, Insightful)
Back to the topic. Scientists are trusted to arrive at scientific conclusions, how can we trust the combustion engine but if they say the world is getting hotter in a bad way we should not? We should definitely challenge them by asking questions and seeking answers, but to discredit them for no reason is a very scary path to go down if you ask me.
Parent
Re:Elitist mentality (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Elitist mentality (Score:5, Funny)
That's right. Science is simply an extension and justification of popular opinion. Too many of these elitists seem to think it's about objective study of the nature our universe.
I think the government hasn't gone far enough. All scientists should be denied funding until they provide conclusive proof of the existence and location of the Garden of Eden, our common ancestors in Adam and Eve and that God is white and conservative. Funding any research until that is done should be an offense attracting the death penalty. By public burning at the stake.
While we're at it, how come meteorologists get off so lightly? There's an example of elitism right there. From now on weather forcasts should always be for perfect beach weather in coastal areas, perfect snow cover in the mountains, and just the right amount of rainfall for the farms. All year round.
This is clearly the only way forward
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not only he who thinks so but society at large. This is called academic freedom. The rationale for its existence can be found it you see what happens when it does not exist, a prime example is "Lysenkoism", death toll: 30 million people in China alone.
Academic freedom doesn't mean scientists are completely unregulated, in fact, there are many ethical restrictions placed on them when conduc
Re:Double standard... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the complaint is that politics is too separated from science. Politicians are ignoring real science and creating a falsified pseudoscience to replace it.
Science, at it's core, is about recognizing and organizing patterns in factual observations. Government, at it's core, should be about a lowest common denominator - things that the vast majority of people can agree on. This lowest common denominator is factual observations.
There is considerable debate over the existence of a God entity but there is very little debate over the existence of gravity. Gravity can be observed. Governments should take the existence of gravity into account when making their decisions. Governments should not take the existence of a God entity into account when making their decisions (unless/until the existence of a God entity can be established as a matter of factual observation).
If a pattern of factual observations is indicating the global warming is occurring then governments should take this into account. Governments should always take factual observations into account regardless of whether the decision is military decision or a financial decision or any other decision.
The basic message to the government is this: "Don't ignore factual observations when making decisions."
Parent
Re:Double standard... (Score:4, Insightful)
Belief in the fact that water will boil at 212 degrees at sea level requires little effort.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So we should respect these guys - http://www.mufon.com/ [mufon.com] - instead of calling them fruitcakes?
Or perhaps you mean "noble" in the chemical sense and are suggesting they're congenitally unable to form stable relationships? If that's the case, there's going to be a lot of bowing and scraping amongst the Slashdot community in the days ahead...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also about politicians distorting and lying about the reports and findings of scientists. That is just as abhorrent when the politicians are distorting intelligence reports, or financial ones. So no, it's not a double standard. The pol
Re:Science VS. CIA (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Absolute Codswallop (Score:5, Insightful)
No, good public policy was never the norm, though lack of scientific knowledge hasn't been the only major reason (indeed, isn't even #1, which is "lack of interest in the public good among the governing elite".) But its certainly a limiting factor, nonetheless.
That's true. Unfortunately, almost any area of public policy requires knowing lots of things, some of which, for almost any policy question imaginable, are of the type that are non-obvious and for which systematic study is necessary to get right other than by chance.
And much of that received, traditional knowledge may be generally correct, but have rather severe limitations that don't become obvious until you try to apply it outside of the context in which that knowledge was generated. You can do that either by systematic study before you implement policy, or by implementing disastrous policy.
Of course, much of that received, traditional "knowledge" is just plain factually incorrect, too.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
haha, you're not suggesting feed a cold, starve a fever is inaccurate are you?
It is funny how the parent assumes that everyone came from a sane upbringing where reason was taught rather than irrational hatred or any of the myriad of other attributes that make up this diverse world we live in.
Much of what we know as common sense now wasn't so common 200 years ago though and everything does need to get examined as you said, either through disastrous policy where thousands are injured or dead like Katrina o
Re:Absolute Codswallop (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you do not, but you almost certainly need a methodology that includes empirical tests and peer review at some point. Received wisdom -- about race, about god/godess/the gods, about how to cure ailments -- must be subjected to the same tests and the best tools we have for achieving some modicum of "truth" about the world. You don't have to argue for an absolute-truth epistemology or for modern science as the end of human progress to conclude that some ways of knowing are better than others, and that all attempts at knowing must be verified and critiqued as best we can.
More importantly, we live in a world where policy directly interacts with issues intimately connected with the sciences -- if you were making policy in 18th century Boston, you're not (except in the most remote senses) making policies that deal with the Internet, or nuclear weapons, or global warming. The spectre of these things makes science far more crucial in public policy than at any other point in human history.
Parent
Re:Pot and kettle (Score:4, Insightful)
(Of course it's common knowledge that the truth has a strong liberal bias.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're a watchdog group whose only agenda is full disclosure and absolute rigor.
I see that you don't know much about the UCS. They're a Left-wing advocacy group whose original goal was to shut down nuclear power. Having largely succeeded at that, they then went on to other left-wing causes.
Unless you can prove they ignore the suppression and misrepresentation of findings only in a very selective way
There's plenty of proof of that out there already. Just Google it.
Their donor's list reads lik
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So they publish a statement saying that the earth is becoming overpopulated. They say it is therefore imperative that abortion be universally available. (Coded, "reproductive decision.")
Saying that populations are exceeding expected future ability of the planet to sustain a minimal lifestyle...that is a relatively politically neutral statement. Just saying "overpopulation" is a bit more political, but only because you aren't stating your assumptions. Saying then that abortion is the solution is overtly p
Invented? Hardly... (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, the cloak of modern empirical science was probably grabbed by political factions for their
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, I don't think any research has itself stated that humanity must or mustn't curtail their emissions of hydrocarbons, only that there are predicta
Re:misrepresentation of date? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What's the scientific term for "hypocrite"? (Score:4, Interesting)
And I suppose you are going to tell me that the Scaife-funded "Capital Research Center" is a neutral, objective, unbiased commenter on political ideology.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice job on missing the point. The intention wasn't to present the periodic table. The intention was to present it in an interesting graphical format. You could also call it a little mocking of the political elite.
Yay, since you try to turn this into a political issue, now you set the scene for the political indoctrinated biases to wo