Defenses of Scientific American editorial on Bush & science

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:48:18 +0100
From: Charles Arthur, The Independent <carthur () independent co uk>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <4091D902.4050704 () well com>

Hi Declan...

At 12:41 am -0400 on 30/4/04, you wrote:

> It is not unthinkable that scientists have political biases. In fact, it
> would be remarkable if many were not lifelong Democrats who may be
> tempted to be a bit more critical of a Republican's science policies
> than they would, say, a Bill Clinton's. Moreover, many scientists rely
> on government funding of domestic programs, which arguably increases
> faster under Democratic regimes.

I'm sorry, Declan, but that is a really *disgraceful* comment to put above
an article which is not arguing for "more funding" and which is not about
political points, but about how well *science* is served by an
administration - and how well an administration treats the independent
science provided to it.

Look at just a couple of the details, because the editorial is scathing in
its entirety.

> 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.

Both Republican presidents, by the way.

> The administration misrepresented... [snipped; in the original email. A
> very depressing list of misrepresented science.]

> ... Blind loyalists to the president will dismiss the UCS
> report because that organization often tilts left--never mind that some of
> those signatories are conservatives. They may brush off this magazine's
> reproofs the same way, as well as the regular salvos launched by California
> Representative Henry A. Waxman of the House Government Reform Committee
> [see Insights, on page 52] and maybe even Arizona Senator John McCain's
> scrutiny for the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. But it
> is increasingly impossible to ignore that this White House disdains
> research that inconveniences it.

That last is the kicker. Scientists get really uncomfortable when they find
themselves arguing against the facts; they change their worldview instead.
A decade or so ago, there was a lot of thinking that climate change would
lead to a new ice age. The studies showed that was wrong. The studies
weren't discarded - instead, the idea of the coming ice age was.

George Monbiot, with whom I don't always agree, wrote a terrific piece
about climate change scepticism recently
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1204194,00.html).


More generally, I'd say this about the scientists I've spoken to and read
over the years: they're pretty indifferent to politics and politicians,
except where those politicians try to influence the disinterested practice
of science. And especially if those politicians ignore good science in
favour of their own preferences, religious or otherwise.

David King, the chief scientific adviser to the British government, has
repeatedly said that "Climate change is a greater threat than terrorism":
he said it at the AAAS meeting, in Science magazine, and more recently
here. But I bet you won't hear George Bush acknowledging that. Terrorism is
sudden, and right here and now. Climate change is gradual, but also here
and now. It's much easier to demonise terrorists, though, than ourselves.


        best
        Charles
--
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
The Independent newspaper on the Web: http://www.independent.co.uk/
        It's even better on paper




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:39:04 -0700
From: dano <dano () well com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <4091D902.4050704 () well com>

The problem is not only that this administration chooses the science
and scientists that it wants to promote its agenda, but also that it
is slowing down science in this country by excluding qualified
scientists and graduate students (the common laborers that do much
academic science) or severely impeding their entry into the country.
If this continues, it will serve to slow down new science in this
country while helping science to accelerate in other countries.

A current IHT has an article from a recent Boston Globe:
<http://www.iht.com/articles/517770.html>




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 21:42:12 -0700
From: R <rhisiart () charter net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <4091D902.4050704 () well com>

dear Declan:

I'm not sure I'd characterize Bush's "science policies" as Republican.
They're much more protestant religious fundamentalism than Republican.

Rich





-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 23:38:16 -0700
From: John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>, gnu () toad com

When discussing biased science, don't forget Alan Leshner, the former
head of the the National Institute on Drug Abuse (www.nida.nih.gov),
a U.S. agency well criticized for only funding studies that look for
harmful effects (rather than beneficial effects) from
politically-disfavored substances.

Leshner sent millions of tax dollars to Prof. George Ricaurte, whose
research on MDMA (Ecstacy) was so egregious that ordinary members of
the public were able to point out that his results were totally
fabricated.  (His last paper claimed that taking a single dose of
Ecstacy could bring on Parkinson's Disease -- though millions of
humans have taken Ecstacy without any big upswing in Parkinson's.)
However, his paper had made it all the way through the scientific
review process, was published in the journal "Science", and was then
used to influence Congress to pass new penalties on Ecstacy users.
After public outcry, Ricaurte eventually tried to reproduce his own
results with a different set of lab animals, failed, and lamely blamed
the problem on a mislabeled vial of "speed" that was "somehow" used in
his original experiment.  He was forced to publicly retract his paper.
(Leshner and Ricaurte are also the pair who brought you the false
"Ecstacy causes holes in your brain" study and publicity.)

Here's a good overview of the situation:

  http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_research2.shtml

Leshner has slipped out of public employment, into a cushy job
elsewhere.  Where might this paragon of scientific integrity be now?
He's President of AAAS, the American Association for the Advancement
of Science.  The publisher of "Science"...the journal of politically
biased papers.

Our NIDA "science" bureacracy is in full spin-control mode about
Ecstacy now, under its new Director, Nora Volkow, MD.  In their latest
Ecstacy report, she says:

  The so-called "club drug" MDMA continues to be used by millions of
  Americans across the country despite growing evidence of its
  potential harmful effects. 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA,
  or "Ecstasy") has gained a deceptive reputation as a "safe" drug
  among its users.

Clearly, our anti-drug "scientists" want us to believe that ten
million US Ecstacy users continue to take a substance that hurts them,
for no obvious reason.  They aren't showing up in emergency rooms
after taking it, either.  The idea that perhaps this substance is
doing these people some good, otherwise they wouldn't take it, doesn't
seem to resonate with the "scientific search for truth" as conducted
by the Bush Admin.

        John Gilmore





-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:31:15 -0700
From: Kimberly Allen <kimall () mindspring com>
Reply-To: kimall () mindspring com
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>

> It is not unthinkable that scientists have political biases. In fact, it
> would be remarkable if many were not lifelong Democrats who may be
> tempted to be a bit more critical of a Republican's science policies
> than they would, say, a Bill Clinton's.

Ptooey. A good chunk of scientists are lifelong Republicans who identify
more strongly with the hardheaded, reductionist approach of conservatives
than with the more flexible, contingent approach of liberals.

> Moreover, many scientists rely
> on government funding of domestic programs, which arguably increases
> faster under Democratic regimes.

Wrong again. What's important is to realize that the majority of scientific
research is funded through grants from the military branches (assuming you
count applied research along with "basic" research-- the latter hardly
exists anymore, actually)-- think ARL, NRL, DOD.... This can be seen for
the Clinton case at http://www.cdi.org/issues/research.html.

It's not totally clearcut, but for the most part, scientific research has
done better under Republican regimes. Although this site defines research a
little differently than the pie chart above, consider the historical trends
seen at http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/far/ch3_f3.html. Note the
steep increases under Reagan. If the non-military budget increased so
steeply, DOD's share of the pie got even bigger.

Kim Allen






-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 00:45:51 +0300 (EEST)
From: Jei <jei () cc hut fi>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
CC: politech () politechbot com
References: <4091D902.4050704 () well com>

What about the Billions of dollars being pushed to new
nuclear weapons development and bioweapons programs?

I would say the money is flowing pretty well with the republicans in
power as well.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 07:12:11 -0500
From: Joseph A. Nagy, Jr. <jnagyjr () joseph-a-nagy-jr homelinux org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <4091D902.4050704 () well com>

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 12:41:38AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote the 
following:
> It is not unthinkable that scientists have political biases. In fact, it
> would be remarkable if many were not lifelong Democrats who may be
> tempted to be a bit more critical of a Republican's science policies
> than they would, say, a Bill Clinton's. Moreover, many scientists rely
> on government funding of domestic programs, which arguably increases
> faster under Democratic regimes.
>
> That said, this editorial is pretty disturbing and ties enough threads
> together to be pretty convincing.
>
> Editorial at:
> 
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=0001E02A-A14A-1084-983483414B7F0000
>
> -Declan
<snip>

Are you really surprised by this? I'm not surprised at all.

It seems to me that Bush is going to rely on Christian Fundamentalists to
get him re-elected. (Un)Fortunately (depending on how you look at it) they
make up a very noisy minority.

--
Joseph A. Nagy, Jr. http://joseph-a-nagy-jr.homelinux.org
Political Activist Extraordinaire       Peace, Life, Liberty
"The only fallacy is the inaction on our part to stave off the worst of
horrors, the stripping of personal freedom." -- Joseph A. Nagy, Jr. 
January 2004


_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)