The Politicization Of Science in the Bush Administration: Science-As-Public Relations

[memekiller]

The latest issue of Skeptic Magazine that takes Bush to task for his abuse of science:

 

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic10-08-04.html

 

 

The Politicization Of Science in the Bush Administration: Science-As-Public Relations

Dylan Otto Krider

 

There’s a war going on—and not just the one in Iraq. This conflict may not get as much media play, but it could have just as great an impact on our safety, national prestige, and long-term economic health. It is a war over the integrity of science itself, and the casualties are everywhere: career scientists and enforcement officials are resigning en masse from government agencies, citing an inability to do their jobs due to what they see as the ruthless politicization of science by the Bush administration. Bruce Boler, Marianne Horinko, Rich Biondi, J. P. Suarez and Eric Schaeffer are among those who have resigned from the EPA alone. In a letter to The New York Times, former EPA administrator Russell Train, who worked for both Nixon and Ford, wrote, “I can state categorically that there never was such White House intrusion into the business of the EPA during my tenure.” 1 Government meddling has reached such a level that European scientists are voicing concerns that Bush may not merely be undermining U.S. dominance in sciences, but global research as well. 2

[jattaway]

You will, I hope, concede that Global Warming IS a theory and there are plenty of scientists on both sides of the proverbial fence willing to debate it? I will certainly agree that I can not imagine a link between abortion and Breast Cancer, but while I am a huge fan of breasts and the practice of procreation, I do not consider myself an expert (I do, however, intend to continue my research).

 

That said, what is your central point? That Bush is a danger to the sciences? I would be happy to argue against that, I am a firm believer of a certain morality needing to be applied to science. I admit, that Hitler made great medical and scientific breakthroughs, I would rather have waited 20 years though and not had countless jews used as test subjects.

 

Please define your arguement, it is too vague as it stands.

[Pangloss]

Skeptic Magazine needs to take a dose of its own medicine.

 

There are legitimate concerns with regard to science and the Bush administration. I share them. But they overstate the case and ignore obvious facts that would ameliorate perceptions, and thus not support their ideological conclusions. Such as the fact that the "ban on stem cell research" (as it is commonly known) is actually not a legal restriction on stem cell research of any kind, it's only a ban on public funding for the embryonic variety.

 

Or the fact that while the Bush administration has done some things that can be viewed as harmful to the environment, they've also done some things that are helpful, and all of these things should be viewed carefully and in context. Drilling in ANWR, for example, may be *necessary*, even if we find new ways to spur the exploitation of alternative fuels and greater conservation of energy.

[memekiller]

You will' date=' I hope, concede that Global Warming IS a theory and there are plenty of scientists on both sides of the proverbial fence willing to debate it? I will certainly agree that I can not imagine a link between abortion and Breast Cancer, but while I am a huge fan of breasts and the practice of procreation, I do not consider myself an expert (I do, however, intend to continue my research).

 

That said, what is your central point? That Bush is a danger to the sciences? I would be happy to argue against that, I am a firm believer of a certain morality needing to be applied to science. I admit, that Hitler made great medical and scientific breakthroughs, I would rather have waited 20 years though and not had countless jews used as test subjects.

 

Please define your arguement, it is too vague as it stands.[/quote']

 

I think the point is that science should be free of political interference, and that politicians restrict their meddling to issues of policy (i.e. what to do about those scientific conclusions once they've been reached). Whether or not the earth is warming should be decided by scientists. Whether Kyoto is the best means to deal with that is an issue of politics.

 

What is so wrong about how this administration handles science is that they want industry to have a say in the conclusion of the research. Someone who stands to make a profit off scientific conclusions would tend to have a conflict of interest, no? And when science concludes something they don't like the research is rewritten or suppressed. I don't think that's how the scientific process is supposed to work. Don't you agree that scientific conclusions ought to be made based on evidence, data and experiment rather than politics, ideaology and self-interest?

[memekiller]

Or the fact that while the Bush administration has done some things that can be viewed as harmful to the environment' date=' they've also done some things that are helpful, and all of these things should be viewed carefully and in context. Drilling in ANWR, for example, may be *necessary*, even if we find new ways to spur the exploitation of alternative fuels and greater conservation of energy.[/quote']

 

Again, you're talking policy. I think it's difficult to defend taking a scientific study that says EPA regulations "enhanced" training realism, and change it to say "impaired", or suppressing scientific studies that don't happen to forward administration policy. Nor is it proper to have the government embrace the conclusions of a pro-life activist over the consensus of the scientific community because he happens to tow a particular line.

 

Should we drill in Alaska? Maybe. That's a political debate. Does a majority of Caribou birthing occur in the proposed drilling area? A scientific study said so. So the administration simply changed the data to say it occurred "outside" rather than "inside". Certainly, no matter what your politics, that is indefensible and unscientific.

[Pangloss]

But that's the "war" I believe we're fighting -- a war of policy. I don't believe there's a war against science in the Bush administration. I believe that's a construct of closed minds, determined to overstate the case in order to indicate that the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater.

 

Phrases like "suppressing scientific studies" and "embracing the conclusions of a pro-life activist" aren't about promoting an objective assessment, but about instilling fear. The fact that there is no chilling effect never stopped anyone from pretending there is one.

 

You have me when you talk about concerns and slippery slopes. You lose me when you make it sound like we're deep in a quagmire with no end in sight.

[memekiller]

You have me when you talk about concerns and slippery slopes. You lose me when you make it sound like we're deep in a quagmire with no end in sight.

 

I guess we're just talking about a matter of degrees then, which is subjective. I don't think it's a deep quagmire. But I will say that the number of scientists who have resigned and who have voiced concerns (Republicans and Democrats), and the number of scientists (including 20 Nobel laureates) who have signed the Union of Concerned Scientists letter protesting this administration's attitude towards science, at the very least, shows the situation is more dire now than it has been with past administrations (who have done their fair share of meddling). So it sounds like we're basically in agreement about the particulars. It just freaks me out more than you.

[Pangloss]

Yes.

 

You may not be aware of this, but the Union of Concerned Scientists is a political organization. A special interest group, just like NOW or the NRA. They're a 501©(3), with (as they say in politics) "a PAC and an address in the beltway". So *anything* they say has to be taken with a grain of salt, because like any other special interest group, they have an agenda, and their job is to convince you that there is no other point of view. That is what their membership pays them to do.

 

It's very impressive that 60 scientists including 20 Nobel laureates signed that thing. One question you really ought to ask, however, is why it wasn't signed by *thousands* of them. They have a membership of 100,000. Yes, they would have gotten more signatures if they'd opened it up. What they don't want you to know is how many dissenting voices would have been heard. The message is more powerful if it's portrayed as unanimous.

[jattaway]

Pan beat me to the punch, here is a great article that discusses this and related issues in great detail. http://www.rppi.org/ourscience.shtml

[memekiller]

"Reason Public Policy Institute is a public policy think tank promoting choice, competition, and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress."

 

Hardly a scientific organization.

 

And it should be noted that Lindzen is a Cato scholar, and in the minority on the issue of climate change. About any time you hear about dissent in climate science, it's from him or fellow Cato scholar Patrick Michaels and a few others. Hardly a consensus. And the Cato institute is hardly any less partisan than UCS.

 

The UCS is not the only one complaining either. Many Republican scientists have resigned and/or voiced concerns over the present administration's handling of policy. If you don't believe the UCS, all you have to do is read the Washington Post, Discover, Scientific American or the New York Times.

 

And how many nobel laureates support Bush's science policy?

[Pangloss]

Oh no, you're right about the general tenor of scientific opinion on politics these days. Those who do speak out are predominently anti-Bush, I don't think there's any question about that.

 

My main objection was to Skeptic magazine accusing the Bush administration of "politicizing science". I think both sides have done that. And for them to say that one side is to blame for that is anti-skeptical. It's politically correct. Even if it does happen to be their honest opinion. The job of a skeptic is to keep the mind OPEN and look at BOTH sides of an issue. Not to be a partisan ideologue.

 

They want to talk about chilling effects? How about the chilling effect on a scientist who dares to suggest that global warming might not be human-caused?

 

But no, I think your points in general are quite valid. And a very important subject for discussion/debate.

 

Welcome to the forum, btw. I hope you stick around and join us for other discussions.