Is American science losing its integrity under Bush?

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I receive emails from a body called the Union of Concerned Scientists.

These people have a number of strongly voiced concerns about the management of scientific information under the Bush administration - I shall give links and outline some major ones below.

Now - I am only a very poor social scientist - (which we all know doesn't count a hill of beans in this crazy world, lol) - so I am genuinely interested in comments from anyone who has an informed opinion on all of these accusations, or contributes more information. I am certainly very concerned, but this is also clearly an organisation with strong views and a political and environmental position.

It would be lovely if it didn't degenerate into a party political bun fight, eh??? Perhaps if we might ignore any folk who come just to make partisan polemical statements? Hmmmmmmmm?

Anyhoo:

Union of Concerned Scientists Home:

http://www.ucsusa.org/index.cfm

Who they are: http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/index.cfm

UCS is an independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists. We augment rigorous scientific analysis with innovative thinking and committed citizen advocacy to build a cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world.

UCS's programs are the means by which we accomplish this. They are the pressure points translating vision into action. Through them, we connect the best scientific insights with the knowledge and support of an astute citizenry and apply them to the machinery of government at all levels?with results that have set a standard for effective advocacy for decades.

UCS was founded in 1969 by faculty members and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who were concerned about the misuse of science and technology in society. Their statement called for the redirection of scientific research to pressing environmental and social problems.

From that beginning, UCS has become a powerful voice for change. Our core groups of scientists and engineers collaborate with colleagues across the country to conduct technical studies on renewable energy options, the impacts of global warming, the risks of genetically engineered crops, and other related topics. We share the results of our research with policymakers, the news media, and the public.

Our experts work together with citizens across the country to disseminate our findings and alter policies in local communities as well as on the national level.

Our advocates are highly respected in Washington, DC, as well as in state capitals, and are frequently called to testify before government committees.

The UCS Online Action Network gives citizen the means to keep informed on our issues and to help shape policy by expressing their view to government and corporate decisionmakers.

Through our Sound Science Initiative, thousands of scientists provide the facts on environmental science to government and the media.

Knowing the enormity of the challenge, we actively work in coalition with other environmental groups that share our goals.[color]

Their current concerns:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320

statement
Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking

On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists?Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents?signed the statement below, voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. UCS is seeking the signatures of thousands of additional U.S. scientists in support of this effort.
????

Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.

President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990

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. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.

Attention Scientists
We need you to support this statement calling for an end to scientific abuse?now more than ever.

Creating meaningful reform will require the persistent and energetic engagement of the scientific community?in universities, laboratories, government agencies, and companies across the United States......

............When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government?s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.
For example, in support of the president?s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.

The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration?s proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. ?Clear Skies? would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation?s air and reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act.

Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon also based his decisions on such calculations he would not have supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which in the following 20 years prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Similarly, George H.W. Bush would not have supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and additional benefits of comparable proportions would have been lost.

The behavior of the White House on these issues is part of a pattern that has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, to observe, ?How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations.?

Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government?s outstanding scientific personnel:

Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration?s policies or with the views of its political supporters.
The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.
In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education. To elevate the ethic that governs the relationship between science and government, Congress and the Executive should establish legislation and regulations that would:

Forbid censorship of scientific studies unless there is a reasonable national security concern;
Require all scientists on scientific advisory panels to meet high professional standards; and
Ensure public access to government studies and the findings of scientific advisory panels.
To maintain public trust in the credibility of the scientific, engineering and medical professions, and to restore scientific integrity in the formation and implementation of public policy, we call on our colleagues to:

Sign the statement today?click here.
Bring the current situation to public attention;
Request that the government return to the ethic and code of conduct which once fostered independent and objective scientific input into policy formation; and
Advocate legislative, regulatory and administrative reforms that would ensure the acquisition and dissemination of independent and objective scientific analysis and advice.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,023 • Replies: 43

No top replies

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=405

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.cfm

0 Replies

Some alleged examples in public health policy:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1355

Cases: Public Health
Scientific Knowledge on Abstinence-only Education Distorted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page is an excerpt from the 2004 UCS report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.

Since his tenure as governor of Texas, President George W. Bush has made no secret of his view that sex education should teach teenagers ?abstinence only? rather than including information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.......

....In fact, a recent systematic analysis of pregnancy prevention strategies for adolescents found that, far from reducing unwanted pregnancies, abstinence programs actually ?may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants.?46 ........

........The fact that the Bush administration ignores the scientific evidence, troubling though that is, is not the primary concern of this report. Rather, it is the fact that the Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants.47 In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to track only participants? program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs.48.......

.......The fact that the Bush administration ignores the scientific evidence, troubling though that is, is not the primary concern of this report. Rather, it is the fact that the Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants.47 In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to track only participants? program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs.48.....

........?out of the entire session, conducted by a nonscientist, the only thing resembling science was one study reportedly in progress and another not even begun.?50 Despite the absence of supporting data, this source and others contend, CDC scientists were regularly reminded to push the administration?s abstinence-only stance. As he puts it, ?The effect was very chilling.?51......

0 Replies

Breast cancer:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1357

Scientific Knowledge on Breast Cancer Distorted

This page is an excerpt from the 2004 UCS report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.

Scientists: sign this statement to voice your concern about the Bush administration's misuse of science.
In a case the New York Times labeled ?an egregious distortion of the evidence,?54 information suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer was posted on the National Cancer Institute website despite objections from Centers for Disease Control (CDC) staff, who noted that substantial scientific study has long refuted the connection. After public outcry on the matter, the information has since been revised and no longer implies a connection.55

0 Replies

Airborne Bacteria

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1358

Cases: Public Health
Analysis on Airborne Bacteria Suppressed

This page is an excerpt from the 2004 UCS report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.

Dr. James Zahn, a research microbiologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), asserts that he was prohibited on no fewer than 11 occasions from publicizing his research on the potential hazards to human health posed by airborne bacteria originating in farm wastes.56
Zahn?s research had discovered significant levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the air near hog confinement operations in Iowa and Missouri.57 But, as Zahn recounts, he was repeatedly barred by his superiors from presenting his research at scientific conferences in 2002.58 In at least one instance, a message from a supervisor advised Zahn that, ?politically sensitive and controversial issues require discretion.?59.........

0 Replies

HIV/AIDS

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1356

Scientific Knowledge on HIV/AIDS Prevention Distorted

This page is an excerpt from the 2004 UCS report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.

Scientists: sign this statement to voice your concern about the Bush administration's misuse of science.
At the instigation of higher-ups in the George W. Bush administration, fact-based information on the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) website has been altered to raise scientifically questionable doubt about the efficacy of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.......

0 Replies

Emergency Contraception:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1443

Science Overruled on Emergency Contraception

This page is an excerpt from the July 2004 update to the February 2004 UCS report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.

An official at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) overruled the advice of the agency's staff and two independent scientific advisory panels when he decided recently to deny women over-the-counter access to the emergency contraceptive levonorgestrel (sold under the brand name "Plan B"). Numerous FDA officials and medical advisers to FDA involved in and familiar with the approval process call the move an almost unprecedented repudiation of government scientific expertise. By law, the FDA is required to approve drugs that are found to be safe and effective......

0 Replies

Anyhoo - the website contains many alleged examples in many areas of science.

0 Replies

During the Clinton years there was considerable complaints about pacs and special interest groups determining the policies of government. UCS is clearly both, but not necessarily bad. The USA government has made science blunders in every administration, so it is not a partisan thing and I doubt it has worsened since 2002.
IMHO moderation is best on nearly every thing. It is a logical approach when there is reasonable doubt about the wisdom of all the extremes.
Instead of banning new technology we should insist on full public disclosure of experiments, before during and reveal the conclusions and possible conclusions. This takes away some of the potential for profit, which slows the process, but more important, we know who was reckless when a disaster follows the experiment, which is quite rare. Administration and determining guilt is also cheap. The scientists goes to jail if they did not honestly disclose, or it is the publics fault for not paying attention to the disclosures. We don't need to do this with all experiments, but clearly genetic modifications have potential for great harm. I'm not yet convinced that cloning and stem cell research have significant potential for harm, but I an untrained in both areas. Neil

0 Replies

Thanks Neil.

Special interest groups are a given - as is lobbying.

What I am most interested in is whether UCS are correct in their assertions that ideology is perverting the integrity of scientific data more under this administration than is normal.

0 Replies

I ain't smart enough to comment, except to say, I am in agreement that science is losing its integrity under all of our recent presidents - In my Humble opinion.

0 Replies

Humble or Hubble?

0 Replies

Does it matter weather Attila the Hun or Adolph Hitler was worse? What do you suggest to minimize the future perverting of data? Perhaps we should end government grants and only offer prizes for proven results? It appears too many scientists are willing to tell half truths and false inferences to help assure continued employment. It worked well for Bill Clinton. Should we be surprised many have learned to waffle (and worse)believably? Neil

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I ain't smart enough to comment, except to say, I am in agreement that science is losing its integrity under all of our recent presidents - In my Humble opinion.

What makes you say that, Edgar?

0 Replies

neil wrote:

Does it matter weather Attila the Hun or Adolph Hitler was worse? What do you suggest to minimize the future perverting of data? Perhaps we should end government grants and only offer prizes for proven results? It appears too many scientists are willing to tell half truths and false inferences to help assure continued employment. It worked well for Bill Clinton. Should we be surprised many have learned to waffle, believably? Neil

I do not know enough to make suggestions for reform, Neil.

I am simply seeking informed opinion re this administration'scomparison with those before it. It appears you think they are much of a muchness - great - but on what do you base your opinion?

0 Replies

You have me pinned in a corner now. I confess my biased opinion is Democrats as a group are even worse than Republicans in most all respects. I will likely vote for the Libertarian candidate as the least awful choice. Science issues will be minor in determining how I vote. I want to see much less federal and international government. Neil

0 Replies

The fact that the government can get away with such sophistry reflects badly on the population which votes.

Effective education is the key to solving many of our problems these days. Unfortunately that will only help future generations. The rest of us are stuck with what we've got.

0 Replies

Government cannot take away the integrity of a scientist - or anyone else for at matter - who is willling to act independently to prserve it.

UCS is a collection of activists who happen in many cases to be scientists. Many of those cited in the article are hardly among the bright lights in their fields. An angry brueaucrat in a technical role in some government agency who claims his integrity was "stolen" because his paper on some topic didn't make the cut for some publication or conference is not an example of lost integrity.

Government routinely makes numerous choices among competing interests. Not every potential chemical or biological hazard can be eliminated from our environment without doing more harm than benefit. Choices based on risk must be made. Public reactions and outrage over reported risks are well known to be very poorly related to the real relative risks involved. The typical traffic light at a busy road intersection can be shown to present more public risk than the average nuclear powerplant. Try explaining that fact to a "concerned anti-nuke activist".

The nerd whose pet theory is not acted on by a government concerned with many competing interests and factors can be counted on to decry the callous trampling on his pure scientific values. That, however, doesn't make him either right or deserving to be heard.

0 Replies

Hi George: Did what you typed all seem irrelevant to me because I need more explanation? The problem is the rich and powerful are using the media and education system to tell us how to think, so effectively; the handful of independent thinkers are thought nut cases by nearly everyone. The rich and powerful are even deceiving themselves. I fear for the future unless we can turn this around somehow. Neil

0 Replies

Some of the dissenters are "independent thinkers", sometimes they are just "nut cases". The "rich and powerful" are, as you say,are often able to foist self-serving and false or harmful ideas on the public mind. However it is worth noting that such things occur throughout the political spectrum.

A rich and powerful public education monopoly, consisting of professional education bureaucrata, teacher's unions, the NEA, and text book publishers has convinced much of the American population that the cure for the ills of our educational system is a sustained monopoly for them and ever larger sums of public money to feed their ineffective system, despite the facts established by less costly and far more effective private, parochial, and charter schools,

Rich and powerful environmental groups have lobbied effectively to prevent the harvesting of wood from our national forests. The result is overgrowth and the accumulation of fuel at ground level and widespread destruction of the forests by wildfires and insect/parasitic infestations.

Many self-proclaimed "scientists" have participated actively in both deceptions, often proclaiming that they were the lonely dissenters, fighting the rich and powerful, when in fact thety were themselves dupes or participants in a conspiracy of the rich and powerful.

0 Replies

Is American science losing its integrity under Bush?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know