Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (62819)	10/26/2004 11:36:39 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

The Bush administration's war on science By PETER KARAGIANNIS Globe and Mail Update The Bush administration has regularly been accused of manipulating information for a political purpose. No better example is the current Iraq war. However, probably the most frequent occurrences of this behaviour involve the administration's treatment of science. To appreciate how deep the skepticism of the scientific community is toward the current administration, one only need look at the world's two most prestigious science journals, Nature, an English peer-review journal, and Science, the U.S. equivalent. With regard to the Bush administration, both these journals have repeatedly expressed concern over its political influence on science. During the 2000 election, both journals seemed optimistic about the commitment to science from George Bush. There was some concern regarding Mr. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney's fossil-fuel-business pasts, but overall this team was expected to promote science through investment and recruitment, both domestic and foreign, like any other. In fact, the first half of the Bush administration was relatively well received. Despite the typical cautions and concerns for any new administration, neither journal feared science would be compromised. But near the end of 2002 that all changed. Scathing headlines summarized a growing frustration within the scientific community, particularly on how science was received and reported. Editorials accused the administration of not only ignoring dissenting opinion, but also refusing to hear it in the first place. Furthermore, the journals say the administration tends to distort scientific evidence or rig advisory panels for political purposes. Advisory committees have been stacked with individuals too often in complete agreement with the administration. Politics also determined what science would be publicized. Sometimes the argument was not whether scientists were censored but rather how often. Climate change has probably been the most abused area of research. The President's environmental advisers became an exclusive group of lobbyists with strong interests to promote the use of fossil fuels, steering the government's policies to be more industry-friendly and thus adjusting the science to satisfy these goals. As an overt example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is devoted to climate-change research, was shuffled to the Commerce Department. According to Science, not only is the administration's attitude toward global warming a national embarrassment — it is also dangerous. On the other hand, stem-cell research and issues regarding AIDS have fallen victim to religious conservatism. Neither journal has been pleased with the handling of these issues; they argue that obstacles to stem-cell research are unnecessary and AIDS prevention has emphasized morality over science. Nature opined that the administration had made bioethics into a political tool, subverting its purpose. Appointments, too, have become the target of criticism. There is a concern that whomever one voted for influences one's candidacy for a scientific position. Some Republican representatives see nothing wrong in asking how applicants voted. In response to scientists' complaints about the matter, the government has never denied asking such a question. The extreme intrusion by government into such areas has led to another concern: the inability of the United States to remain the premier nation in science. Changes to homeland security have made it remarkably difficult for educated foreigners to acquire visas. More alarming is the political interference. Normally, government annually funds an institution, such as the National Institute of Health, but funding decisions for specific projects within a respective institute are left to peer-review bodies, where scientists evaluate a grant application in their field to decide if it is worth funding. Now, however, the U.S. government is exercising its might. An earlier motion in Congress to rescind grants studying sexual behaviour, drug abuse and HIV/AIDS was narrowly defeated. Other grants have been revoked because Congress declared them frivolous. As of yet, neither journal has endorsed a candidate, and they are unlikely to. Still, each has been very harsh on the current administration, particularly over the administration's inflexibility — concerns that have become more and more prominent as the election nears. This last point was summed up by Science the following way: "A government position is taken on a matter of scientific importance and scientific justifications for those policies are offered; the scientific rationale is then abandoned or changed, but the policies based on that science remain." U.S. voters are not going to make science their primary concern when deciding their preferred candidate. Nor am I suggesting that they should. Nevertheless, it is another of the many issues to consider when participating in (or, like me, watching) the upcoming election. The U.S. government has alienated a lot of scientists. This alienation is not about money but, more important, about trust. Peter Karagiannis, a Canadian, is a post-doctoral fellow in nanotechnology at Osaka University in Japan. theglobeandmail.com