USGS scientists worry about being muzzled

msnbc (AP) ^ | Dec 16 2006 | John Heilprin

[djf]

I guess that means if we get a couple 5.0+ quakes on Mt. Rainier we have to wait for White House approval before we get official warning.

[kinoxi]

The results need to be screened because taxpayers desire accountability. MSNBC is still on the air?

[djf]

We have professional scientists on the payroll because they're professional scientists and will give us the straight scoop.

Is there any politicians in the White House who are competent enough to review USGS findings?

I don't think so...

[CHUCKfromCAL]

Oh No! Does this mean I can't publish my leftist junk science in hopes of embarrassing the Bush Administration. Peer Review just sucks. Signed "USGS Junk Scientist"

[kinoxi]

New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists who study everything from caribou mating to global warming.

You don't think results should be reviewed? This doesn't affect seismological information as you implied. It creates a reviewal process in the government which IMHO is sorely needed and should be explored.

[djf]

We should have info that doesn't have to go through a political filter.

A few politicians are honorable men.
But ALL politicians are liars and thieves to some extent.

[skr]

Scientists are entirely trustworthy and wouldn't spin in order to keep funding coming their way. Riiiight.

[Szent_Adam_Kiraly]

"You don't think results should be reviewed? This doesn't affect seismological information as you implied. It creates a reviewal process in the government which IMHO is sorely needed and should be explored."


Why does the govt need to review the results pre-publication? Publication doesnt nullify scientific findings from criticism.

This could very well effect seismological data.
"— prior to any submission for publication — “of findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.”"

The govt can already review and criticize scientific findings post publication. Political pressure on science, makes objectivity and investigational integrity more difficult.

[kinoxi]

Why does the govt need to review the results pre-publication? Publication doesnt nullify scientific findings from criticism.

From an individual no. From the USGS it needs to be verified.

I don't share your faith in scientific altruism. These are tax dollars and should be monitored unless you suggest writing a blank check...

[Szent_Adam_Kiraly]

"I don't share your faith in scientific altruism."

Thats because science is not altruistic. Good science is objective, observable, re-creatable.

Some scientific findings will inevitably disagree with political policy,ideals and projects. Suppressing or manipulating disagreeable results would be in the party's immediate interest.

[kinoxi]

Do you suggest a blank check to these individuals because they are above scrutiny or reproach?

[Szent_Adam_Kiraly]

"Do you suggest a blank check to these individuals because they are above scrutiny or reproach?"

I do not.
Scientists are not above scrutiny or reproach. Good science implies constant scrutiny by testing results against reality. The government should absolutly scrutinise findings, publications and procedures.

My objection is with putting the government in a position to supress and manipulate science for political gain, prior to publication.

[kinoxi]

I think we basically agree. You might have to assist me with the 'suppress and manipulate science' part because I can't seem to locate it.

[Szent_Adam_Kiraly]

"You might have to assist me with the 'suppress and manipulate science' part because I can't seem to locate it."

What cant you locate? The supression and manipulation of science for political gain is well documented throughout history. The government "screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists" gives the government the opportunity to supress and manipulate findings prior to publication.

[kinoxi]

Uh , yeah , Okay.

[kinoxi]

Dude, I like saw that X-files and it wasn't that good.

[indcons]

You're right. Some people here think that if a Republican and a Dimocrat commit the same actions/crimes, the Republican is absolved of any guilt automatically (by virtue of merely being a Republican).

[preacher]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338

Excerpt from above article:

Global Warming Gag Order
Senators to Exxon: Shut up, and pay up.
Monday, December 4, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Washington has no shortage of bullies, but even we can't quite believe an October 27 letter that Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe sent to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Its message: Start toeing the Senators' line on climate change, or else.

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

It isn't a good thing when tax dollar funded research is controlled by the Government.
The first step in controlling the people, is to quiet the scientists and thinkers.