The White House bends science to its will

By The Editors of Scientific American

STANDING UP for science--or stepping on it?

Starting in the 1930s, the Soviets spurned genetics in favor of Lysenkoism, a fraudulent theory of heredity inspired by Communist ideology. Doing so crippled agriculture in the U.S.S.R. for decades. You would think that bad precedent would have taught President George W. Bush something. But perhaps he is no better at history than at science.

In February his White House received failing marks in a statement signed by 62 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and advisers to the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. It begins, "Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences.... The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle."

Doubters of that judgment should read the report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that accompanies the statement, "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making" (available at www.ucsusa.org). Among the affronts that it details: The administration misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences and other experts on climate change. It meddled with the discussion of climate change in an Environmental Protection Agency report until the EPA eliminated that section. It suppressed another EPA study that showed that the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act would do less than current law to reduce air pollution and mercury contamination of fish. It even dropped independent scientists from advisory committees on lead poisoning and drug abuse in favor of ones with ties to industry.

Rest of article: http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4655&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Scientific%20American%3A%20White%20House%20S cience%20Not%20Unlike%20Lysenkoism&Cache=False

Rest of article: http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4655&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Scientific%20American%3A%20White%20House%20S cience%20Not%20Unlike%20Lysenkoism&Cache=False

Ah, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a well meaning group it would seem, wait a minute, I don't even have to be a Scientist to join? All I have to do is send a check for $35 and I become a member with a lovely tote for shopping adventures at Whole Foods? Why don't they just call themselves the UCS (aka Greenpeace)?

...as uninformed as it is, not withstanding. They are correct.

...as uninformed as it is, not withstanding. They are correct.

Wow! Thank you for your proclomation. I guess that makes it so. It takes 3 seconds on their website to determine that they are an organization with a political agenda. I might even agree with some of their positions, but you'd have to be quite naive to not see the agenda here. I see a bunch of 'scientists' have discovered an optimal nuclear weapons strategy for the United States, did they find it with a microscope or excavate it in Argentina?

Ah, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a well meaning group it would seem, wait a minute, I don't even have to be a Scientist to join? All I have to do is send a check for $35 and I become a member with a lovely tote for shopping adventures at Whole Foods? Why don't they just call themselves the UCS (aka Greenpeace)?

As per the usual 'Sheep response: attack the personal, ignore the message.

Wow! Thank you for your proclomation. I guess that makes it so. It takes 3 seconds on their website to determine that they are an organization with a political agenda. I might even agree with some of their positions, but you'd have to be quite naive to not see the agenda here. I see a bunch of 'scientists' have discovered an optimal nuclear weapons strategy for the United States, did they find it with a microscope or excavate it in Argentina?

You post in a way that makes slugs and other invertebrates look like Nobel Prize winners. Your ineffective imitation of good posting style only serves to illuminate your lack of substance, good taste, and decency.

You get even more ridiculous with every word that comes tumbling out your over-used mouth. You're just another Internet-addicted idiot suffering from diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the mind. However, I'll consider letting you have the last word if you guarantee it will be your last. Oh well, as the late Douglas Adams said: "You live and learn. At any rate, you live."

Most repair manuals are far more interesting than you, and far less turgid to read. If you called the Suicide Hotline, they'd say: "Go ahead. Do it!" Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if you weren't afflicted with mental retardation; if your weren't so fat that buildings bounce when you haul your Sumo Wrestler mass down the street, or if you didn't have a face that could scare a hungry wolf off a meat truck. No, come to think of it, you would.

In future, wake up the dozy peglegged hamster operating that wheel-powered brain of yours before you start typing.

You post in a way that makes slugs and other invertebrates look like Nobel Prize winners. Your ineffective imitation of good posting style only serves to illuminate your lack of substance, good taste, and decency.

You get even more ridiculous with every word that comes tumbling out your over-used mouth. You're just another Internet-addicted idiot suffering from diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the mind. However, I'll consider letting you have the last word if you guarantee it will be your last. Oh well, as the late Douglas Adams said: "You live and learn. At any rate, you live."

Most repair manuals are far more interesting than you, and far less turgid to read. If you called the Suicide Hotline, they'd say: "Go ahead. Do it!" Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if you weren't afflicted with mental retardation; if your weren't so fat that buildings bounce when you haul your Sumo Wrestler mass down the street, or if you didn't have a face that could scare a hungry wolf off a meat truck. No, come to think of it, you would.

In future, wake up the dozy peglegged hamster operating that wheel-powered brain of yours before you start typing.

You should really give credit when you plagiarize internet message boards. :rolleyes:

I believe that you do not have a very good understanding of what they are about.

So in your words what are they about & hope to acheve?

In February his White House received failing marks in a statement signed by 62 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and advisers to the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. It begins, "Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences.... The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle."
Why would the Bush administration pay any heed to science? I mean, it's not in the Bible or anything like that so it must be wrong.

Ah, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a well meaning group it would seem, wait a minute, I don't even have to be a Scientist to join? All I have to do is send a check for $35 and I become a member with a lovely tote for shopping adventures at Whole Foods? Why don't they just call themselves the UCS (aka Greenpeace)?

picked up their awards from where? Stealthman, I'm really curious about you. Have you ever studied science? When was the last time you talked to a practicing scientists? I work with scientists in private industry every day, and I know many in Academia. About 90% of them range from concerned to appalled about Federal science policy, or the complete lack therof. The other 10% are either inept or have some other agenda.

Why would the Bush administration pay any heed to science? I mean, it's not in the Bible or anything like that so it must be wrong.

If not wrong then "spiritually " mis-guided. (and anti-business * anti-America)