Posted on 02/19/2004 2:30:43 PM PST by harpu
WASHINGTON - A group of more than 60 top U.S. scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and several science advisers to past Republican presidents, on Wednesday accused the Bush administration of manipulating and censoring science for political purposes.
In a 46-page report and an open letter, the scientists accused the administration of "suppressing, distorting or manipulating the work done by scientists at federal agencies" in several cases. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a liberal advocacy group based in Cambridge, Mass., organized the effort, but many of the critics aren't associated with the group.
White House Science Adviser John Marburger III called the charges "like a conspiracy theory report, and I just don't buy that." But he added that "given the prestige of some of the individuals who have signed on to this, I think they deserve additional response and we're coordinating something."
The protesting scientists welcomed his response.
"If an administration of whatever political persuasion ignores scientific reality, they do so at great risk to the country," said Stanford University physicist W.H.K. Panofsky, who served on scientific advisory councils in the Eisenhower, Johnson and Carter administrations. "There is no clear understanding in the [Bush] administration that you cannot bend science and technology to policy."
The report says that administration officials have:
• Ordered massive changes to a section on global warming in the Environmental Protection Agency's 2003 "Report on the Environment." Eventually, the entire section was dropped.
• Replaced a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet on proper condom use with a warning emphasizing condom failure rates.
• Ignored advice from top Energy Department nuclear materials experts who cautioned that aluminum tubes being imported by Iraq weren't suitable for making nuclear weapons.
• Established political litmus tests for scientific advisory boards. In one case, public health experts were removed from a CDC lead paint advisory panel and replaced with researchers who had financial ties to the lead industry.
• Suppressed an Agriculture Department microbiologist's finding that potentially harmful bacteria float in the air at large hog farms.
• Excluded scientists who've received federal grants from regulatory advisory panels while permitting the appointment of scientists from regulated industries.
"I don't recall it ever being so blatant in the past," said Princeton University physicist Val Fitch, a 1980 Nobel Prize winner who served on a Nixon administration science advisory committee. "It's just time after time after time. The facts have been distorted."
Marburger, also a physicist, said, "I don't think that these incidents or issues add up to strong support for the accusation that this administration is deliberately acting to undermine the processes of science."
He said that each example cited was a separate case, often decided at the agency level for good reasons. He declined to defend any case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONLINE: For the LEFT side of the story, Union of Concerned Scientists and for the RIGHT side of the story, The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Web
Why should I consider the word of people who hobnob with the likes of Carter and Arafat?
Nuff said.
Except....it's weird how liberals claim to care so much about science yet they totally ignore the natural make-up of humankind by trying to claim homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Does zero equal infinity? Is an essential ingredient equal to a non-essential one? Does the fact that in one instance the part forming the "union" must be purchased at a store not clue them that it is inconsistent, scientifically speaking, with the natural design of human sexuality?
That's exactly what's happening here. I know a little bit about some of this stuff - the microbes floating in the air around hog farms is one of the sillier studies ( microbes float around in the air everywhere - like it or not!). Replacing "public health" experts ( the lead study flap ) with actual scientists doing actual research accruing actual data is more responsible than listening to a bunch of pointy headed liberals with "opinions" ( public health experts have to study sociology - they sprinkle a few science courses into the mix - they are NOT researchers and they are NOT scientists although they serve a valuable role in their respective field ).I'm sick & tired of the liberals equating all scientists that are actually gainfully employed in industry as being industry schills- some of the most notable scientists in the world today are "industry people" .
Sorry about the rant but this really got me heated up!
I am, I do and I don't allow my common senses to be influenced by junk science no matter how many martini's with garlic stuffed olives I may consume in a night.
God had a reason for making the Kiwi flightless, unfortunately he never anticipated the Wright brothers......... LOL!
The Heinz Center announced that Howard Ris have been elected to its Board of Trustees. Mr. Ris is president of the Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/8/prweb74516.htm
,,, who's counting? One of these nights I'll get you on a happy hour-free night and you can present all that real data for consideration. Why would opinions be suppressed if they're junk? Surely they'd be laughed at or ignored.
"The Union, of the snake, is on the proooowl, oooowl...."
"Moving up, on the take, gonna, oooooooowwwww."
I love Duran Duran.
More about Mr. Ris:
"Mr. Ris is president of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), where he oversees all the organization’s work on environmental and security issues. He has been with UCS since 1981, serving as executive director from 1984 to 2001 and as director of UCS’s Nuclear Arms Control Program from 1981 to 1984. Mr. Ris is a member of the Environmental Business Council of New England and was a founding member of the Professionals’ Coalition for Nuclear Arms Control and the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility."
Just another red underpants lefty.
Because there is money to be made from crisis'(sp?)
No crisis, no problem, no funding......
All the eye opening studies we hear and read about end with the final statement: "...but more research needs to be conducted."
,,, something along the lines of a trip to Mars, for example?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.