Scientists Decry Political Interference 248
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.'"
Science VS. CIA (Score:1, Interesting)
Absolute Codswallop (Score:1, Interesting)
It's very much possible, and used to be the norm. You don't need a recent scientific study from a top-tier university for knowing a _lot_ of things. Some things you just know; some things your parents taught you; and some things humans have learned over centuries. It's called "received wisdom."
Re:International peace? (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 completely dumbass.I'd suggest some applied research on whether the "generation gap" is an international phenomenon. If you can make the gap between those who want a war of extinction and those who favor living together in peace a demographic one, it might allow the time scale to achieve peace there to be measured in decades, not centuries.
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")
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.
Agreed in general, but small correction... (Score:2, Interesting)
Before that time the great minds who called themselves "scientists" were mostly financially independent, if not outright wealthy -- thus, much more independent of public opinion and public funding.
Scientists working for private corporations (old Bell Labs or IBM T.J.. Watson center, anyone?) tend to have a bit less of this whoredom, I hope.
But whining academics do get on my nerves!
Paul B.
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.
Re:Double standard... (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, there is no debate among the faithful (whichever faith) about there being a God.
Faith has nothing to do with science. Science has nothing to do with faith.
Faith is the belief in something that cannot be shown to be true by science. Science is the belief that nothing is true that cannot be proven to be true.
If you use science to "prove" tenants of your faith, then it is no longer a faith, but a fact. And where is the nobility in believing in a fact?
Re:What's the scientific term for "hypocrite"? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't doubt that there's politics in science; But TFA is itself a political doument, trying to pose as a consensus of scientists.
Re:politics and science have always been intertwin (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:politics and science have always been intertwin (Score:2, Interesting)
Wouldn't an alternate news source be more appropriate? That's like linking to an article in the Republican Quarterly (Washington Times?) claiming that Hillary Clinton refused to kiss some child because his parents were Republican. It's not exactly unbiased.
This entire discussion feels a little like the 5 minutes hate. Maybe, just maybe, the Union of Concerned Scientists are concerned about more than science. Is it possible that they have a political agenda as well? Could it be there are other scientists out there who disagree with them on scientific issues? Maybe the EPA is cancelling these programs out of scientific validity or duplication of resources. I'm only saying these things because every damn comment in this article's thread has been a party line establishmentarian pile of arrogance. Just maybe we could do without funding these idiots.
Case in point. Look at the Ab entry. I'm DEFINITELY no fan of abstinence education but I find quotes like this to be questionable "with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females." (Emphasis is mine.) Why quote the decline of teen birth rates. Why not teen birth rates per-capita? That's right out of How to Lie With Statistics.
The whole article stinks of political bias even as they claim to be unbiased. We all hate President Bush but gimme a break - try some critical thinking.
What scientists think (poll results) (Score:2, Interesting)
Poll: How bad is Bush for science? [the-scientist.com]