| Author |
Message |
    
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 230
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 3:25 pm: |     |
found on nature.com:
Bush accused of power abuse over science
ERIKA CHECK
[WASHINGTON] A prominent Congressman has accused the Bush administration of interfering with US science to such an extent that it is threatening public trust in both science and government.
Henry Waxman (Democrat, California) says that the administration has blocked the dissemination of scientific information, interfered with research results or sought undue influence in the composition of advisory panels, in its handling of a range of issues including AIDS and climate change.
On 7 August, Waxman's staff released a 33-page report, Politics and Science in the Bush Administration, detailing claims that President George Bush and his officials were improperly involving themselves in a variety of aspects of the scientific process.
The report covers allegations of interference at agencies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency. The report alleges that most of this has catered to a conservative or pro-business agenda. For instance, it recounts an attempt by the Department of Health and Human Services to appoint a doctor who opposed abortion to a key FDA committee on reproductive health.
"This report shows there is a pattern here that cannot be ignored," Waxman says. "What we're talking about here is unprecedented."
Kathryn Harrington, a spokeswoman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, says that the report is unfair. "This administration does indeed look at the facts and reviews the best available science to make decisions based on what is best for the American people," Harrington says.
"We rely on people we elect not to use their power in ways that inappropriately distort knowledge," says Sheila Jasanoff, author of The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990) and a historian at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. "The strongest critique of the Bush administration is that this idea of delegation is being violated."
Critics say that the Bush administration's cavalier treatment of science has emboldened others to try to influence the scientific process. Last month, for example, Congress narrowly defeated a proposal by a Republican representative that would have blocked the NIH from funding five grants dealing with aspects of HIV, sexual health and behaviour, and wild animal populations. "The interference is now down to the grant level, and that should really be a cause of concern to the scientific community," says Gregg Gonsalves of New-York-based Gay Men's Health Crisis.
Scientists who have spoken out welcomed the report. They claim that the Bush administration's attempts to influence science put it in danger of becoming irrelevant on major issues related to science.
"After a while, people just won't believe the administration because, again and again, the policies are flying in the face of the facts," says Phil Coyle, assistant defence secretary until 2001, and now a consultant at the Washington-based Center for Defense Information.
|
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 231
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 3:58 pm: | |
science is SUPPOSED to be objective, right? not in Bush's America:
"Among the purported abuses documented in the report:
• "Performance measures" used to determine the effectiveness of federally funded "abstinence only" sex education programs were altered by the administration in ways that made it easier to say the programs were effective. And information about how to use a condom -- along with scientific data showing that sex education does not lead to earlier or increased sexual activity in young people -- was removed from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site.
• In testimony before Congress, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton omitted -- and in at least one case misstated -- federal scientists' findings that Arctic oil drilling could harm wildlife.
• The administration altered a National Cancer Institute Web site in a way that wrongly implied there was good evidence linking abortions to breast cancer.
• The Education Department circulated a memo instructing employees to remove materials from the department's Web site not "consistent with the Administration's philosophy," prompting complaints about censorship from national educational organizations."
above quotes taken from this report http://truthout.org/docs_03/080903D.shtml, which provides a link to the actual Waxman report investigating, and documenting, the abuses. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 653
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 4:52 pm: | |
I recall a recent NYT editorial on this very subject. Scientists and others advising the President and his staff are supposed to provide the most accurate facts possible, which may then be used or misused as the administration sees fit. This administration, however, has made it very clear that they will not accept any information unless it supports their agenda. This is true not only in the environmental and health arenas, but also in economics, international intelligence, and other key areas. |
REBORN STRAW
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 935
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 4:55 pm: | |
boring |
zoe
Citizen
Username: Zoe
Post Number: 305
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 5:08 pm: | |
Henry Waxman, a prominent Congressman? He's a radical nutcase. Oh I guess that makes him prominent, like say ... Condit, another fine example of a prominent Congressman from California.
Pssst, by the way, California is way cool for politics and politicians lately. Why doesn't Henry Waxman add his name to those already running. If he were truly concerned about his state, and thought he could do better than "Blackou" Davis, why doesn't he run? Answer, because he's another whacko loser! |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1111
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 7:53 pm: | |
ad hominem attacks on waxman really don't bear on the facts of the matter, do they? |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 655
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 8:00 pm: | |
Waxman is a "radical nutcase" because... why? Because he has different values and/or priorities than you do?
It's not as if Waxman was the only individual to recognize this incredibly anti-American tactic which has become standard operating procedure for the current administration. It's not as if Waxman made up the fact that the Bush administration deliberately omitted virtually all of the language by the government's own scientists about climate change in a recent EPA report. As Paul Krugman pointed out on 8/5, even the Treasury Department is told what to say by the White House. Is this any way to run a country and formulate policy? |
FreeTibet
Citizen
Username: Freetibet
Post Number: 6
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 12:23 am: | |
can someone please explain to me what the Right Wing Agenda is ???? |
REBORN STRAW
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 937
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 5:33 am: | |
Right wing agenda:
Personal Responsibility
Self-Reliance
Rugged Individualism
Free Enterprise
Lower Taxes
Restrained Government
Individual Freedom
Independence of Mind
|
FreeTibet
Citizen
Username: Freetibet
Post Number: 7
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 5:39 am: | |
i am all for that then ! (i thought it had to do with wearing hats)
"Dont keep putting quarters in my socks"
- Zen Master Dae Bong |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 1864
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 10:04 am: | |
I don't believe anything anymore. NEVER take something as true just because it's "published" as "facts", either in the NYT (JB), on the web, or even The Onion. For instance, a link was posted here about the "damage" wearing school uniforms does to kids, I read it, and it was complete vague complilation of "data" from somewhere purporting to be "true". (I wore a school uniform for eight years, it was great not to have the pressure I suddenly was under when I attended public high school - but that's for another thread). Anyway, it is worrisome when you don't know how much of this stuff is just to defame the opposition. |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 370
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 10:08 am: | |
Eww.. the new MOL catch phrase.. ad hominem. Reminds me of work when everyone in corporate America said "granular"  |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 233
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 10:21 am: | |
well, here's PART of the REAL right wing agenda:
President considers himself above the law
Restricting individual choice
Financially support corporate business
Allow big business to be above the law
Hypocritically espousing “small gov’t” while actually keeping big gov’t where Corporate America’s benefits are concerned
Cutting taxes for all your wildly wealthy friends, while America spirals into its biggest deficit in history – i.e., looting the government for the benefit of the wealthy and Corporate America
Allow big biz to use the law to make workers powerless
Editing and distorting information dispersed by official agencies to comport with administration’s preferred point of view
Stigmatizing and, where possible, criminalizing dissent with the administration
Lying to the public about administration’s current and future intended acts
Lying to the people to justify going to war, without the required act of congress
Lying to the people about Hussein’s alleged involvement with 9/11
Lying to the people in the State of the Union address
Manipulating people’s choices by lying to them, such as by spreading misinformation that links abortion to breast cancer
Restricting women’s choices
Stigmatizing Arabs and Arab-Americans
Presenting misinformation to hide the harms being created by Corporate Energy America
|
REBORN STRAW
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 940
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 10:27 am: | |
Holy ignorance. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 1868
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 10:45 am: | |
"Stigmatizing Arabs and Arab-Americans"
I weep crocodile tears.
The anniversary of 9/11 is only 27 days away. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 10:55 am: | |
that's 1-2many cliches for me. "Use the law to make workers powerless"? Gephardt said the other day that Bush wanted to "end wages." There are legitimate gripes about Bush -- on both sides of the aisle -- but this is hysteria dripping with hate. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 234
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:00 am: | |
the Arabs in general shouldn't be punished for the great horror inflicted on 9/11.
and cataloging the abuses isn't hysteria - the ABUSES are hysteria. how can you ignore the Bush lies and manipulation outlined in the report cited at the opoening of this thread? |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:11 am: | |
1-2,
I don't see any evidence of Arabs being punished here in the US unless they are associated with al queda. Disliked by some, yes, but not punished. Watched, yes, but, um, they have to be. Too bad they weren't watched before 9/11. I know the last two administrations were very slack about this pre 9/11, but, how could we anticipate such diabolical actions? Unfortunately, and insanely, now we have to.
Also, how much of that report is supposedly true? I'm not sticking up for Bush, but I almost have to discredit a lot of stuff from his opposition because they seem desperate to get back into power. It seems like everything these days should be taken with a big bag of salt. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 6
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:20 am: | |
I ignore a lot of what Waxman is behind. The global warming debate is finally having the other side heard, and the press is now reporting that "many" scientists believe that human activity is the culprit from the all-encompassing "scientists generally agree" that used to be those articles. There is good science that throws a wrench into the conventional wisdom on global warming.
Horrors -- the Bush Admin put a doctor on a committee that actually opposes abortion. Public opinion has been shifting to the pro-life side markedly lately, and it's never been the 70/30 winning issue for the left that it is routinely portrayed as. Perhaps we should have nothing but doctors that support abortion at any time, for any reason, for anyone on scientific panels?
|
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 235
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:37 am: | |
the report is documented - check it out - it is long, at 40 pages, but all the instances of Bush Administration editing and manipulating ARE documented.
as one example of Bush trying to effect scientific results with highly partisan input, I was involved in a protest last fall of Bush's nominee for the Reproductive Health Advisory Board, David Hager. Hager, an anti-choice advocate who refuses to prescribe birth control for unmarried women, advises women to pray read the bible to relieve PMS and post-partum depression. He vigorously opposes any reproductive choice and thus was a VERY partisan candidate. here's just two stories:
http://www.arlinc.org/press/capitaltimes.htm
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html
but you can google for corroborating stories as well.
here's an alarming compilation of Bush's insertion of religion into gov't actions:
http://www.righttoliferoch.org/nbushlist.htm
further, scientists have been commenting on Bush's partisan editing of scientific positions for month, in leading science journals, also referred to in the report.
non-scientific-based, partisan manipulation of scientific positions is real cause for alarm. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 236
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:39 am: | |
cjc - we should have doctors that actually prescribe MEDICAL relief - not religion - for bona fide medical problems.
where a doctor uses religion to guide his medical decisions, he has no place practicing medicine, let alone guiding national decisions on medicine.
THIS is radical right-wing agenda. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 1874
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:40 am: | |
1-2,
But who documented it? |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 237
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:44 am: | |
a committee, upon request by Waxman. and the sources check out - isn't that the important thing? |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 1875
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Sorry for being devil's advocate, but who are these sources, who are the people who checked the sources out, who are the people who checked the people who checked the sources, etc.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 7
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 12:05 pm: | |
So, dump Hagar and reach across the aisle with a new-tone selection of Jocelyn Elders, I guess.
As for trying to find links between hormal therapy to argue against abortion....what if he's right? You know....like coffee and french fries kill you...wait, don't kill you...well, maybe they do. I'm reminded of Meryl Streep's impassioned "What are we doing to our children!!!" concerning Alar on apples from the evil corporate chemical makers....and her claims and science were later discredited while NW growers suffered. This stuff happens on both sides, but stacking a panel with yes-men to only one point of view is real death.
I'm all for dumping unqualified panelists, but just being pro-life to me shouldn't disqualify people. I'm sure you would allow some doctor on a panel that goes for assisted suicide, but you might draw the line at Kervorkian? Maybe you wouldn't.
A report compiled solely of critics -- asked for by the biggest critic in the House that Bush has and Dems fishing for issues. Bush is partisan, Waxman is objective. |
nova87
Citizen
Username: Nova87
Post Number: 253
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 12:14 pm: | |
1-2many. Man you need to get a grip. We all realize you hate Bush, but come on. You act as if Bush is the only president to ever doctor "facts" to support his beliefs. Clinton never did that? Right.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=154
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=64
Everyone knows Bush isn't perfect, but lets not pretend that he's the only president to ever manipulate findings.
Ah, this is why I generally hate politics. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 238
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 12:15 pm: | |
Waxman may be partisan - but damning facts are no less damning because they are uncovered by a partisan.
mem - why do the victims have to chase their tails by documenting the documenting?? seems to me it's Bush's turn to respond and refute. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 12:18 pm: | |
1-2,
I was kidding. Like I said, I take all this stuff from all sides with a BAG of salt, I never did like or trust politics. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 239
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 1:24 pm: | |
nova - wrongdoing of the past is NOT legitimate a excuse for current and presently intended wrongdoing. all liars should be held accountable, especially when they're caught in the act and are still in process.
I don't hate Bush, but I do hate what he's doing and how he's lying and hiding behind innuendo to do it. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page