It's A Dangerous World Out There!

Throughout the history of civilization, one of the things crucial for science to fluorish is the free exchange of ideas unencumbered by oppressive centralized government and religion. As Carl Sagan pointed out in his book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark, the values of science and the values of democracy are concordant, in many cases indistinguishable. On this page, I want to talk a little about how science has been attacked in the past, and touch on some important attacks of the present. A Brief History of Science and the World Forces Science Under Attack in Today's World Protecting the Environment Washington Watch - and - Information Sources and Resources Back to Main Page Science Under Attack in Today's World Science has a self-correcting process in place to ensure its integrity and accuracy. The peer review process purges bad methodologies and conclusions while the discovery of new knowledge helps improve and correct old theories and conclusions. This process works well. It has gotten us to where we are today. But in today's western democracies, science is under attack by those with their own agendas. Some recent examples: Science Under Siege - The Fine Art of Manipulating Science Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job? False Science Undermining Science Follow The Money Gov. Kaine office asks that U.Va. professor not use his state title in his private research Budget Woes at NASA Budget Cuts Worsen Airport Weather Observations Bush Administration Shutting Down Access to Information The New Inquisition: Congressional Committees Persecute Climate Scientists Congressional Committee Continues to Persecute Scientists Inhofe Demands Personal Employee Files of NCAR Scientists Barton Lasers the Paleoclimatologists More Censorship of Government Scientists Historians: Bush is the first American president in history who is outwardly hostile to science Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him Lawmaker Condemns NASA Over Scientist's Accusations of Censorship NASA Chief Backs Agency Openness Young Bush Appointee, George Deutsch, Resigns His Post at NASA Censoring Truth Censorship Is Alleged at NOAA More Censorship of Scientists Revealed Fuzzy Science--The Republican War on Science The Importance of Science Education Alliance for Science brings together Scientists and Christians Science Friday Science Comes to the Masses (You Want Fries With That?) -- Café Scientifique AAAS President: Science Essential for Democracy IBM Pushes Math and Science Education Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much Design for Confusion Ignorance Is Bliss; Sometimes It's Policy The Cooney Scandal: White House Official Undermines Climate Reports NOAA Scientists Say Reports Altered Scientists Draft Rules on Ethics for Stem Cell Research "Science is Good for You": Ray Orbach on the Case for Science Censorship by Default: Using Fear to Censor Science Climate official resigns, blasting White House influence GOP: Politics over Science An Academic Question Science and Politics in 2004 and 2005 Many FDA Scientists Pressured Despite Drug Concerns, 2002 Survey Shows Congress Trims Money for Science Agency Congress Dismantling Weather Networks? - NOAA Loses Funding to Gather Long-Term Climate Data Caught Between Church and State - Science vs. Religion: The Battle Over Evolution and Intelligent Design Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List In New Method for Stem Cells, Viable Embryos Alliance for Science brings together Scientists and Christians Scientists Oppose Religious Censorship, Support Evolution Anti-Darwin Bill Fails in Utah Less Scientific Doubt Over Evolution Than Promoted Intelligent Design -- Faith, Not Science The Evolution "Controversy" -- Forcing Religion Into the Science Classroom Science and God Are Not Mutually Exclusive Subverting Science Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue Identity Badge Worn Under Skin Approved for Use in Health Care Junking Science For Honest Reports of Drug Trials Flying Blind: The Decline of Science Policy Advice National Academy of Sciences: Don't politicize science Restoring Integrity to Science Policy The Bush Record on Science National Academy of Sciences probes politics, science 'Data Quality' Law Is Not About Good Science, Was Written To Be A Nemesis of Regulation Sneaky Changes to Regulations Affect Science and Other Government Policy Bush and Science at Loggerheads -- Barriers to research and claims of suppressed data sully interactions between researchers and the administration U.S. science policy swayed by politics Experts in Sex Field Say Conservatives Interfere With Health and Research Drugmakers Prefer Silence On Test Data Federal whistleblower quits, alleges politicization of science Using Pseudoscience and Lies in Opposition to Condoms Ensuring the Integrity of the Scientific Advisory System Limits on Stem-Cell Research Re-emerge as a Political Issue More Mad Cow Mischief Morning-After-Pill Ruling Defies Norm Government Expert Kept From Speaking at Antidepressant Hearing The Professionals' Revolt You Can Use God to Justify Anything Bush's public displays of 'godliness' can't mask actions that Jesus wouldn't stomach Big Pharma, Bad Science Lost in Space The New Scopes Trials The Junk Science of George W. Bush Democrats Demand Inquiry Into Charge by Medicare Officer Beware Republican doublespeak on "sound science" President's Science Policy Questioned: Scientists Worry That Any Politics Will Compromise Their Credibility Scientist 'gagged' after global warming warning Two more scientists 'let go' on science panel The partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical continues U.S. Scientist Tells of Pressure to Lift Bans on Food Imports Before Tested for Safety Science or Politics at the F.D.A.? Scientists Say Administration Distorts Facts Interfaith Alliance Opposes Traditional Values Coalition's Anti-Science Agenda Science by Bureaucratic Edict In a cross between McCarthy-like and Nazi-like tactics, anti-gay forces are censoring science Manipulating Science to Serve Political Ends Executive agencies inevitably reflect the preferences of the president they serve. But the E.P.A. has a long tradition of providing solid science and independent analysis on complex environmental questions. That reputation is now at risk, largely because the agency has been asked to manipulate or withhold science to serve political ends. Scientific Societies Defend Peer-Reviewed Science in K-12 Classrooms Thousand-Year Temperature Record Under Attack The Growing -- and Dangerous -- Divide Between Scientists and the GOP An Academic Question Politicians Censoring Science Teaching in Our Schools ... Is It Coming? Censorship on Global Warming - The EPA Report EPA Scientist Fired for Pushing Good Science Politics being used to silence climate scientists Budget Woes at NASA Science Committee Members Worried About NASA's Science Budget -- Two recent hearings revealed that House Science Committee members are not pleased with NASA's FY 2007 budget request and how it would affect the agency's science programs. Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) professed himself "extremely uneasy" about the request, calling it "bad for space science, worse for earth science." The committee members seemed willing to revisit NASA's priorities, questioning whether President Bush's Space Exploration Initiative was the appropriate focus at the expense of science. They indicated a desire to see NASA's total budget increased during the appropriations process. "Even as a fiscal conservative," said Science and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-CA), "I would like to see us raise [NASA's] topline" and not pit human exploration against robotic programs. At the same time, members continued to voice praise and support for NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. read about it (AIP 3/10/06 article) NASA Cancels Mission to Visit 2 Asteroids: NASA on Thursday canceled a mission to visit two asteroids five months after the program was told to stand down because of cost overruns and technical problems. The cancellation is the latest setback for NASA, which has been forced to delay science missions to focus on developing a new manned spacecraft to return to the moon in the next decade. Mr. Bush's proposal to return to the Moon, while pushing to cut taxes for the rich and force the federal budget into eternal deficit, makes one wonder if cutting NASA science programs is actually his goal all along. read about it (Washington Post 3/2/06 article) New Budget Delays or Cancels Much-Promoted NASA Missions: Some of the most highly promoted missions on NASA's scientific agenda would be postponed indefinitely or perhaps even canceled under the agency's new budget, despite its administrator's vow to Congress six months ago that not "one thin dime" would be taken from space science to pay for President Bush's plan to send astronauts to the Moon and Mars. Among the casualties in the budget, released last month, are efforts to look for habitable planets and perhaps life elsewhere in the galaxy, an investigation of the dark energy that seems to be ripping the universe apart, bringing a sample of Mars back to Earth and exploring for life under the ice of Jupiter's moon Europa -- as well as numerous smaller programs and individual research projects that astronomers say are the wellsprings of new science and new scientists. read about it (New York Times 3/2/06 article) read about it (Washington Post 3/15/06 article) Budget cuts and poor management may be jeopardizing the future of our eyes in orbit -- America's fleet of environmental satellites, vital tools for forecasting hurricanes, protecting water supplies and predicting global warming. "The system of environmental satellites is at risk of collapse," said Richard A. Anthes, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. "Every year that goes by without the system being addressed is a problem." Dr. Anthes chairs a National Academy of Sciences committee that advises the federal government on developing and operating environmental satellites. In a report issued last year, the committee warned that "the vitality of Earth science and application programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly shrinking budget." read about it (Washington Post 3/5/06 article) read about it (CNN source article 3/6/06) Satellite Program Cutbacks Budget Cuts Worsen Airport Weather Observations Due to budget cuts by the Bush administration, automated weather observations at our nation's airports will no longer be augmented by dedicated human weather observers. The automated ASOS weather instruments cannot handle severe winter weather or rapidly changing conditions. "There goes flying safety, and our climate database....right out the window." read about it Bush Administration Shutting Down Access to Information EPA to Close Library Network and Electronic Catalog -- Slowly and quietly, the Bush administration is implementing the features of an Orwellian world. Here, one source of information is being cut off. Under President Bush’s proposed budget, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is slated to shut down its network of libraries that serve its own scientists as well as the public, according to internal agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). In addition to the libraries, the agency will pull the plug on its electronic catalog which tracks tens of thousands of unique documents and research studies that are available nowhere else. read about it (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 2/10/06 article) what can we do about it U.S. Reclassifies Many Documents in Secret Review -- At the National Archives, intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands of historical documents. The Bush administration's secret effort to stifle the free flow of information continues. read about it (New York Times 2/21/06 article) Archivist Urges U.S. to Reopen Classified Files -- After complaints from historians, the National Archives directed intelligence agencies on Thursday to stop removing previously declassified historical documents from public access and urged them to return to the shelves as quickly as possible many of the records they had already pulled. read about it (New York Times 3/3/06 article) Bush's Obstruction of History -- Congress passed the Presidential Records Act in 1978. The law was intended to ensure that after a period of no more than 12 years, presidential records, other than those dealing with existing national security matters and a few other exempted categories, would be made available to the public forever. Thus the law serves as the final check on indiscretion in office and the final basis for presidential accountability. The law's presumption of public access held firm for more than two decades, but in 2001 President Bush used post-Sept. 11 security measures as a reason to issue an executive order that turns the law on its head. Bush's decree allows former presidents and their heirs to bar the release of documents for almost any reason. It flies in the face of congressional intent and forces our nation's leading historians to take legal action if they want to gain access to documents. read about it (Washington Post 2/24/06 article) Hearing Set on Agencies' Withdrawal of Papers From Archives -- A congressional committee will look into a secret program under which federal intelligence agencies have withdrawn thousands of historical documents from public access at the National Archives, even though the records had been declassified. "We are spending literally millions and millions of dollars to keep secrets from ourselves," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), chairman of the Government Reform subcommittee on national security, emerging threats and international relations. "We've got a huge problem." read about it (Washington Post 3/3/06 article) Dangerous Prosecution -- The U.S. has never had an Official Secrets Act -- a law that would forbid anyone, even a private citizen, from disclosing information the government wants to keep under wraps. But if the Justice Department has its way in the prosecution of two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), it will effectively have created one -- without even going to Congress for a change in the law. read about it (Washington Post 3/22/06 article) For Bush and Press, Informal Talks -- President Bush has been holding informal off-the-record sessions with major news organizations over the last several days, which the journalists have agreed not to describe publicly. Isn't the end result of these informal talks still keeping news from the people? Isn't it like collusive censorship? read about it (New York Times 3/28/06 article) The New Inquisition: Congressional Committees Persecute Climate Scientists Congressional Committee Continues to Persecute Scientists Over the past two weeks, a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee has held a pair of truly senseless hearings on global climate change. The purpose was not to figure out how to cut carbon emissions. It wasn't even to discuss the science of global climate change in general. Instead, the purpose was to pick at a single study of global temperature patterns, the so-called "hockey stick" graph -- a trend line that purports to show a sudden and dramatic increase in global temperatures in the 1990s and therefore looks like a hockey stick. The graph is hardly central to the modern debate over climate change. Yet the subcommittee has investigated the scientists who dared produce it and hounded them for information. Now that a study of the graph by the National Academy of Sciences has largely backed up the hockey stick findings, the committee has been holding hearings to attack it some more. read about it (Washington Post 8/2/06 article) Inhofe Demands Personal Employee Files of NCAR Scientists U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, has asked for detailed information regarding the employees, research projects and funding sources of Boulder, Colorado's National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and its parent organization, the University Center for Atmospheric Research. Inhofe, R-Okla., is an outspoken global-warming skeptic. NCAR is one of the world's top climate-change research institutions. U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, said Inhofe's "request for the names of NCAR and UCAR employees and a list of their research projects raises the question whether this is about the conclusions these scientists have reached or whether this is an attempt to influence the outcome of their research. It would be completely inappropriate for Congress to attempt to determine the outcome of scientific research or to penalize scientists for conclusions because they might present a political problem." Jurisdiction for science and climate change usually falls under the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, not Inhofe's. William Collins, an NCAR scientist specializing in climate modeling, said the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of climate-change research are clear. "The lines of evidence are all reinforcing, and they are all consistent," Collins said. "I can't imagine how anyone can conclude it's a hoax." read about it (Boulder Daily Camera 3/18/06 article) Climate Science Watch Barton Lasers the Paleoclimatologists Demand for Their Data on Climate Chills Scientists: Congressman Joe Barton opens probe of researchers who have reported global warming. Not only is the White House attacking government scientists, but the Republican Congress is attacking non-government scientists, in their effort to quash research on global warming. Several independent studies have come to conclusions similar to the conclusions of the research done by the scientists being investigated (Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes). But the work of Dr. Mann and his colleagues has served as a lightning rod for attacks by skeptics of greenhouse warming, in part because the researchers' early studies, in 1998 and 1999, figured prominently in a 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-sponsored group known as the IPCC. Climate scientists in the United States and in Europe said they were shocked by Mr. Barton's requests. "It's a technical form of harassment by people in Congress who are opposed to [the evidence of] global warming and basically want to discredit the science so they don't have to worry about the policy alternatives," said Thomas Crowley, a professor in the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York City, said, "There is something rotten in Washington. These requests from Representative Barton seem to be harassment and a threat to researchers and agencies that deliver scientific results that displease politicians." Mr. Barton worked in the oil-and-gas industry before being elected to Congress, in 1984. In the past decade, he has consistently ranked as one of the top five recipients of campaign contributions from that industry. "This is highly usual," declared a spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee when asked this week whether the request by committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Tex.) for information from three climate scientists was out of the ordinary. For Mr. Barton to pretend that he is going to learn something useful by requesting extensive data on 15th-century tree rings is ludicrous; to pretend that it is "normal" to demand decades worth of unrelated personal financial information from scientists who are not suspected of fraud is outrageous. The only conceivable purpose of these letters is harassment. This bizarre episode deserves much wider condemnation from congressional leaders. Unprecedented: Climate Change Research Controversy on Capitol Hill - read about it (American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News 7/25/05 issue) A Bid to Chill Thinking - Behind Joe Barton's Assault on Climate Scientists: read about it (Washington Post 7/22/05 article) Witch Hunt: read about it (Washington Post 7/22/05 article) Climate Change Witch Hunt: It's more likely that Rep. Barton simply wants to harass the scientists. Joe Barton is a Texan who has been a lobbyist for the gasoline industry, and he has opposed every piece of legislation aimed at combating climate change. A poll on Barton's own website, which is visited for the most part by his constituents and supporters, shows the depth of public opposition to his activities. (read about it, 8/31/05 article) Houses Divided on Warming - It's going to be hard enough to find common political ground on global warming without the likes of Representative Joe Barton harassing reputable scientists: read about it (New York Times 7/23/05 article) read about it (The Chronicle for Higher Education 7/15/05 article) read about it (BushGreenwatch 7/13/05 article) Rep. Barton's letter to Dr. Mann House Committee on Science - Dispute Regarding the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Investigation of Climate Research Scientists: summary of documents, letters, media reports and editorials Chairman Boehlert's letter to Chairman Barton National Academy of Sciences (NAS) letter to Chairman Barton American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) letter to Chairman Barton AAAS press release on Energy and Commerce investigation Letter to Chairman Barton signed by 20 climate researchers Rep. Barton's letters to Drs. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, and the IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri and National Science Foundation The Barton/Whitfield Letter and Responses - Excellent record of correspondence relevant to the Barton probe, especially Dr. Bradley's, Dr. Hughes', and Dr. Mann's responses. read about it (Science Magazine 7/1/05 article) read about it (Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 7/12/05 article) "At some point, one must ask why should a member of the U.S. Congress get involved in this matter which may have been raised by a Canadian (NOT a U.S. citizen)? I believe the purpose is two-fold: (1) to send a signal of intimidation to researchers who produce results that are not consistent with some political preferences; and (2) to continue to dwell on the hockey stick 'hot button' by raising questions and fomenting uncertainty, with the aim to discredit greenhouse science so skeptics in government and their supporters can continue to claim that there are too many uncertainties to proceed with any action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." - Thomas J. Crowley, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, N.C. read about it (New York Times 7/18/05 article) Two G.O.P. Lawmakers Spar Over Climate Study: The inquiry (initiated by Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas) has since been criticized by scientists and Democratic lawmakers. Now the critics have been joined by Representative Sherwood Boehlert of New York, the chairman of the House Science Committee, who late last week sent a letter to Mr. Barton calling the investigation "misguided and illegitimate." Mr. Boehlert noted that other recent analyses have supported the main conclusion of the study: that the climate's warming since the late 20th century appears to be significantly outside the bounds of natural variability. In his letter to Mr. Barton, Mr. Boehlert said the effort "raises the specter of politicians opening investigations against any scientist who reaches a conclusion that makes the political elite uncomfortable." read about it (Washington Post 7/18/05 article) House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) has demanded that another senior Republican, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (Tex.), call off his investigation of three scientists who have charted Earth's rapid warming in recent decades. In a letter Boehlert publicly released yesterday, the veteran GOP moderate asserted that his panel has jurisdiction over climate change and that Barton is targeting these scientists because he disagrees with their conclusions. "My primary concern about your investigation is that its purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review," Boehlert wrote. "My research findings, which support the conclusion that the earth's surface is warming, and that recent warming is due in large part to human influences, are consistent with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change," Dr. Mann (one of the scientists targeted by Mr. Barton) wrote. "Other scientists have replicated all facets of my research and found it accurate and reliable." Global Warming Roils Congress - read about it (USA Today 7/18/05 article) Researchers, Lawmakers Criticize Inquiry Into Climate Calculations - read about it (Wall Street Journal 7/18/05 article) An Attack on Sound Science - read about it (Denver Post 7/22/05 article) Rep. Barton's harassment of scientists, disdain for fellow lawmakers a disservice - read about it (Houston Chronicle 7/20/05 article) Cultivation of ignorance - read about it (Rutland Herald 7/19/05 article) Playing Hockey With Science - read about it (The Cincinatti Post 7/20/05 article) Paleoclimate or Paleopolitics? - read about it (The Boston Globe 7/27/05 article) More Censorship of Government Scientists Questions Continue to be Asked About Bush Administration Scientific Information Policies Historians: Bush is the first American president in history who is outwardly hostile to science Bush's faith-based conception of his mission, which stands above and beyond reasoned inquiry, jibes well with his administration's pro-business dogma on global warming and other urgent environmental issues. While forcing federally funded agencies to remove from their Web sites scientific information about reproductive health and the effectiveness of condoms in combating HIV/AIDS, and while peremptorily overruling staff scientists at the Food and Drug Administration on making emergency contraception available over the counter, Bush officials have censored and suppressed research findings they don't like by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture. Far from being the conservative he said he was, Bush has blazed a radical new path as the first American president in history who is outwardly hostile to science -- dedicated, as a distinguished, bipartisan panel of educators and scientists (including forty-nine Nobel laureates) has declared, to "the distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends." read about it (Rolling Stones 4/21/06 article) Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists. Dr. Hansen said that nothing in his 30 years at NASA equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide. He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents. Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied." The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet." "Neither science nor democracy can function well with the kind of pressure and filtering that have been occurring," Hansen said. read about it (New York Times 1/29/06 article) read about it (CBS 60 Minutes 3/19/06 interview) Dr. Hansen's Recent Lectures and Papers - columbia.edu Lawmaker Condemns NASA Over Scientist's Accusations of Censorship The chairman of the House Science Committee sharply criticized NASA yesterday after the agency's top climate scientist and several public affairs officers complained of political pressure intended to prevent public discussions of global warming. "Good science cannot long persist in an atmosphere of intimidation," the chairman, Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Republican of New York, said in a letter to NASA's administrator, Michael D. Griffin. read about it (New York Times 1/30/06 article) read about it (American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News 1/31/06 issue) read about it (American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News 3/15/06 issue) House Science Committee chairman Boehlert said that while NASA had responded well so far, it "still has a lot of work to do to ensure openness." (What the Congressmen don't seem to understand, or want to understand, is that it's not NASA administrators who are the problem here, it is political appointees from the White House that are impinging upon NASA from outside, forcing the censorship upon the agency.) The committee's ranking Democrat, Representative Bart Gordon of Tennessee, said, "I'm afraid that scientific censorship permeates this administration, and NASA is no exception. But the administrator is taking a forthright role." read about it (New York Times 2/17/06 article) NASA Chief Backs Agency Openness A week after NASA's top climate scientist complained that the space agency's public-affairs office was trying to silence his statements on global warming, the agency's administrator, Michael D. Griffin, issued a sharply worded statement yesterday calling for "scientific openness" throughout the agency. "It is not the job of public-affairs officers," Dr. Griffin wrote in an e-mail message to the agency's 19,000 employees, "to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff." The statement came six days after The New York Times quoted the scientist, James E. Hansen, as saying he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for prompt action to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. He and intermediaries in the agency's 350-member public-affairs staff said the warnings came from White House appointees in NASA headquarters. Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists and public-affairs employees came forward this week to say that beyond Dr. Hansen's case, there were several other instances in which political appointees had sought to control the flow of scientific information from the agency. They called or e-mailed The Times and sent documents showing that news releases were delayed or altered to mesh with Bush administration policies. The only response came from Donald Tighe of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "Science is respected and protected and highly valued by the administration," he said. (The administration's behavior and efforts to manipulate science and force political and religious views into science demonstrates beyond any doubt that the administration does NOT respect or protect or value science at all.) read about it (New York Times 2/4/06 article) read about it (Washington Post 2/5/06 article) NASA to Draft New Rules for Media Office -- In his clearest statement yet regarding accusations that NASA public relations officials had manipulated news releases or reports involving climate change and cosmology, Dr. Griffin told reporters that "it is not appropriate for scientists to be required to adjust, spin or alter their scientific work to fit any particular political agenda." read about it (Washington Post 2/16/06 article) Scientists Commend NASA's Progress on Communications --A review set off by reports that political appointees had tried to muzzle some agency scientists received a public vote of support from scientists and other staff members. read about it (New York Times 3/14/06 article) On-line petition showing support for "...open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public" and for Dr. James Hansen. Only those currently associated with NASA are allowed to sign, but the general public may view the petition and all current signatories. http://support-letter.umiacs.umd.edu:8080/hansen/index.jsp Young Bush Appointee, George Deutsch, Resigns His Post at NASA George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said. Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A and M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted. Mr. Deutsch represents the latest example of the Bush administration lies and corruption and efforts to stifle much needed discussion on climate change. Yesterday, Dr. Hansen said that the questions about Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a distraction from the broader issue of political control of scientific information. "He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. "The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about. On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here." read about it (New York Times 2/8/06 article) read about it (The Scientific Activist: Reporting from the Crossroads of Science and Politics 2/8/06 article) read about it (CNN 2/9/06 article) Censoring Truth The Bush administration has sought to influence policy debate on climate change/global warming by muzzling the people who disagree with it or -- as was the case with two major reports from the Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 and 2003 -- editing out inconvenient truths or censoring them entirely. A recent example is Dr. James Hansen, NASA's top climate specialist, who was threatened by Bush political appointee George Deutsch with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for aggressive action to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming. As Dr. Hansen observed, Mr. Deutsch, who lied about his educational background, was only a "bit player" in the administration's dishonest game of politicizing science on issues like warming, birth control, forest policy and clean air. This from a president who promised in his State of the Union address to improve American competitiveness by spending more on science. read about it (New York Times 2/9/06 article) Washington Post: Mr. Deutsch is only the latest example of the Bush administration running roughshod over scientists, saying scientific facts are just "opinions", and threatening scientists with "dire consequences" when they are doing their job of reporting scientific truth, all so that Mr. Deutsch can "make the president look good". The spectacle of a young political appointee with no college degree exerting crude political control over senior government scientists and civil servants with many decades of experience is deeply disturbing. More disturbing is the fact that Mr. Deutsch's attempts to manipulate science and scientists, although unusually blatant, were not unique. The White House has censored and manipulated scientific data and reports coming out of NASA, USDA, EPA, NOAA, and the Department of Health and Human Services, just to name a few. In every administration there will be spokesmen and public affairs officers who try to spin the news to make the president look good. But this administration is trying to spin scientific data and muzzle scientists toward that end. NASA's Mr. Hansen was right when he told the Times that Mr. Deutsch was only a bit player. "The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies," he said. We agree. read about it (Washington Post 2/8/06 article) The Silencing Of Science -- Anne Applebaum: Two weeks ago, after news broke that a NASA press officer had resigned amid revelations that he'd tried to muffle the agency's top climate scientist, I got several such calls. All were from people with similar tales of government-funded scientists intimidated by heavy-handed public relations departments. read about it (Washington Post 2/14/06 article) Censorship Is Alleged at NOAA James E. Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who sparked an uproar last month by accusing the Bush administration of keeping scientific information from reaching the public, said Friday that officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are also muzzling researchers who study global warming. read about it (Washington Post 2/11/06 article) Response of NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher (read about it) More Censorship of Scientists Revealed Top political appointees in the NASA press office exerted strong pressure during the 2004 presidential campaign to cut the flow of news releases on glaciers, climate, pollution and other earth sciences, public affairs officers at the agency say. The political appointees altered or limited news releases on scientific findings that could have conflicted with administration policies. read about it (New York Times 2/16/06 article) Fuzzy Science--The Republican War on Science A stinging indictment of how the Republican Party has not only ignored science, but has used bad science to justify its political agenda. Chris Mooney: "With the ascent of the modern conservative movement and its political domination of the Republican Party, two powerful forces had fused. On issues ranging from the health risks of smoking to global climate change, the GOP had consistently humored private industry's attempts to undermine science so as to stave off unwelcome government regulation. Meanwhile, on issues ranging from evolution to embryonic stem cell research, the party had also propped up the Christian right's attacks on science in the service of moral and ideological objectives." "In short, the GOP had unleashed a perfect storm of science politicization and abuse, in the process precipitating a full-fledged crisis over the role of scientific information in political decision-making. Yet this insidious threat—to public health and the environment, but also to good governance, sound leadership, and ultimately knowledge itself—remained obscure to most Americans, veiled by the intricacies of the government regulatory process and the complexities of scientific disputation." "I wanted to tell the full story of how science became a political football in modern American life. And I wanted to make clear the dangerous threat this development poses—to science, to our political system, and even to the Republican Party itself." http://www.waronscience.com/home.php The Importance of Science Education Alliance for Science brings together Scientists and Christians The Alliance for Science is a new organization of scientists, scientific groups and supporters, including thousands of Christians. The mission of the Alliance for Science is to heighten public understanding and support for science and to preserve the distinctions between science and religion in the public sphere. http://www.allianceforscience.org/ Science Friday Science Friday, provided in part by the National Science Foundation and the Sloan Foundation "is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide from 2-4 pm Eastern time as part of NPR's 'Talk of the Nation' programming. Each week, we focus on science topics that are in the news and try to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join Science Friday's host, Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science - and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program." Science Friday web site: http://www.sciencefriday.com/ Find A Radio Station Live Streaming Stations Podcasts XML RSS Feed NPR's Transcripts Archives Join Email List Science Comes to the Masses (You Want Fries With That?) -- Café Scientifique Café Scientifique meetings hope to make science accessible and even fun to anyone with the time to stop by. Café Scientifique in Colorado, and its cousin Science On Tap in Seattle, is based on a similar Café Scientifique in England. read about it (New York Times 2/21/06 article) Colorado Café Scientifique in Denver "The Café Scientifique idea started in England a few years ago, based on the French Café Philosophique. In the Café Scientifique, people (often science buffs) come together in a friendly pub after work and hear an informal introduction to an interesting current scientific topic, led by an expert. We take a short break for refreshments, to meet new people, and chat, and then we return for questions and answers and general discussion. All questions and comments are welcome, as this isn't a seminar, it's a chance for all of us to express an opinion, expert or otherwise." Café Scientifique, Great Britain Café Scientifique is a place where, for the price of a cup of coffee or a glass of wine, anyone can come to explore the latest ideas in science and technology. Meetings take place in cafes, bars, restaurants and even theatres, but always outside a traditional academic context. Café Scientifique is a forum for debating science issues, not a shop window for science. We are committed to promoting public engagement with science and to making science accountable. Science On Tap, Seattle, WA -- "A place to eat, drink, and talk about science". Science on Tap is a place where anyone can come to explore the latest ideas in science and technology in a relaxed atmosphere. A forum for discussing science issues with local scientists, Science on Tap is based on Cafe Scientifique. We are committed to promoting public engagement with science and to making science accessible. AAAS President: Science Essential for Democracy Dr. Gilbert Omenn, president of AAAS, said the public's understanding of science is a crucial element of heated political, social, religious and technical debates. "Scientific thinking is absolutely essential to preserving democracy," Omenn said. read about it (Washington Post 2/16/06 article) IBM Pushes Math and Science Education "Over a quarter-million math and science teachers are needed, and it's hard to tell where the pipeline is," said Stanley Litow, head of the IBM Foundation, the Armonk, New York-based company's community service wing. "That is like a ticking time bomb not just for technology companies, but for business and the U.S. economy." Math and science are of particular concern to companies in many U.S. industries that expect to need technical workers but see low test scores in those subjects and waning interest in science careers. read about it (CNN/AP 9/16/05 article) Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much The findings of Jon D. Miller, a political scientist, about how much Americans know about science are not encouraging. While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," Dr. Miller said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process. Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, said, "We ignore public understanding of science at our peril." read about it (New York Times 8/30/05 article) Design for Confusion To accomplish their goal of undermining science, corporations pour a steady stream of money into think tanks that create a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of "scholars" whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers. This strategy of creating doubt about inconvenient research results has been very effective in discrediting research on global warming, and it is now being applied to evolution. read about it (New York Times 8/5/05 article) Ignorance Is Bliss; Sometimes It's Policy Examples? Well, there's the way Bush insists on hamstringing American scientists who are trying to explore the potential medical benefits of therapies involving embryonic stem cells. And there's no real reason for Bush's position except politics. All that Frist and other reasonable people want is to be able to experiment on surplus embryos from fertility clinics, embryos that otherwise will be destroyed. But the radical pro-life lobby won't be reasonable. Then there's this administration's almost comical insistence that the firm scientific consensus on global climate change is some kind of mass hallucination. "What global warming?" they ask, as mean temperatures rise, Arctic ice melts, tropical diseases march north and hurricanes rake poor Florida in swarms. To round out the trifecta, the other day Bush reiterated his support for teaching "intelligent design" in America's schools along with evolution, as a way of exposing students to different points of view. This really borders on madness. Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory at all; it's a matter of faith -- Creationism 2.0. Faith is a different kind of truth. Charles Darwin's landmark discovery of evolution, with a few minor modifications and additions over the years, has proved to be one of the sturdiest and most unassailable scientific theories of all time. To the extent that science can say /anything/ is true, evolution is scientifically true. Done. Settled. As Walter Cronkite used to say, "That's the way it is." read about it (Washington Post 8/5/05 article) The Cooney Scandal: White House Official Undermines Climate Reports A White House official, who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute, has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors. read about it (CNN/Reuters 6/8/05 article) read about it (New York Times 6/8/05 article) climate reports edited It's sad to think of a White House run by people who believe that environmental problems can be edited out of existence - read about it (New York Times 6/9/05 article) Cooney Resigns. His resignation came two days after documents revealed that he had repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that cast doubt on the link between building greenhouse-gas emissions and rising temperatures. - read about it (New York Times 6/10/05 article) Cooney hired by Exxon only days after resigning - read about it (New York Times 6/15/05 article) A former lawyer and lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute, the main lobbying group for the oil industry, Mr. Cooney has no scientific training. He worked on opposing climate change efforts for the API, did the same thing for the White House, and now will be doing the same thing for Exxon. NOAA Scientists Say Reports Altered Many scientists at NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency responsible for balancing hydroelectric dams against endangered salmon, say they know of cases where scientific findings were altered at the request of commercial interests, according to a survey released Tuesday by two watchdog groups. read about it (Yahoo News 6/28/05 article) Scientists Draft Rules on Ethics for Stem Cell Research Universal Stem Cell Principles Proposed: Concerned that the world's patchwork of laws and ethics rules governing human embryonic stem cell research is sowing confusion and stymieing international collaborations, scientists, ethicists and others have mounted a major effort to devise a set of universal principles that would guide the research everywhere. read about it (Washington Post 3/1/06 article) Science Academy Creating Panel to Monitor Stem Cell Research: To fill a void in federal supervision, the National Academy of Sciences is setting up a committee to provide informal oversight over research with embryonic stem cells. read about it (New York Times 2/16/06 article) Citing a lack of leadership by the federal government, the National Academy of Sciences proposed ethical guidelines yesterday for research with human embryonic stem cells. Scientists believe that stem cell research will lead to treatments for a wide variety of diseases by enabling them to grow new organs to replace damaged ones. Because of religious objections, Congress has long restricted federal financing of such research and President Bush has restricted the research. The academy, the nation's premier independent science advisory board, recommends setting up a system of local and national committees for reviewing stem cell research. It also tackles a new set of ethical problems raised by creating organisms composed of cells from two different species. The 131-page report contains the first comprehensive -- albeit voluntary -- ethics rules to emerge from years of jostling by scientists, ethicists, patient advocates and others with stakes in the research. read about it (New York Times 5/2/05 article) read about it (New York Times 4/27/05 article) read about it (Washington Post 4/27/05 article) Full report: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309096537/html/ Executive summary (pdf): http://www.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11278.pdf The full report (to order it) is at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11278.html A far more pressing reason to study stem cells is the fact that they are the source of at least some, and perhaps all, cancers. The idea, if right, could explain why tumors often regenerate even after being almost destroyed by anticancer drugs. It also points to a different strategy for developing anticancer drugs, suggesting they should be selected for lethality to cancer stem cells and not, as at present, for their ability to kill just any cells and shrink tumors. read about it (New York Times 2/21/06 article) "Science is Good for You": Ray Orbach on the Case for Science Office of Science Director Ray Orbach discussed the fate of science in today's tight federal budget. "How science will fare, both within the Administration and in Congress," he said, "depends on us, on you and me, and our ability to convince this nation of the importance of science. We are not without arguments to make this case. For me, they rest upon three pillars: economic growth, scientific literacy, and intellectual excitement. Each is a critical element for our society." read about it (American Institute of Physics 4/13/05 news alert) Full text of his 02/19/05 speech: "The Case for Science: Economic Growth, Scientific Literacy and Intellectual Excitement," Presentation by Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director, Office of Science, at the AAAS Fellows Forum, 2005 American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, Washington, DC: http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/speeches/Presentations/2005_AAAS_Fellows/AAAS_Fellows_Breakfast.htm, at http://www.science.doe.gov/ Censorship by Default: Using Fear to Censor Science A New Test for Imax: The Bible vs. the Volcano. Several Imax theaters are refusing to show movies that mention evolution, fearing protests by opponents of the theory. It's not limited to evolution. The censorship is extending to the Big Bang and the geology of the earth ... basically anything religious extremists finger. read about it (New York Times 3/19/05 article) Censorship in the Science Museums - read about it (Washington Post 3/28/05 article) Climate official resigns, blasting White House influence A top climate official announced plans to resign his federal post next week, blasting the Bush administration's global warming research plan and raising concern about the potential for politics to influence federal findings. Rick Piltz, senior associate with the Climate Change Science Program, said he would resign at the end of next week after 10 years at CCSP and the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the agencies responsible for federal climate research. Piltz expressed frustration with what he sees as the intrusion of politics into the scientific arena and a questionable scientific review process overseen by top White House officials. read about it (Greenwire - Environment and Energy Publishing 3/4/05 article) Rick Piltz email Rick Piltz full statement GOP: Politics over Science The Republicans are trying to choke needle-exchange by subjugating science, logic and compassion to a political agenda. THE BUSH administration is quietly extending a policy that undermines the global battle against AIDS. It is being pushed in this direction by Congress, notably by Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.). But some administration officials zealously defend this policy error, claiming scientific evidence that doesn't exist. read about it (New York Times 2/26/05 article) Deadly Ignorance - read about it (Washington Post 2/26/05 article) An Academic Question There are so few Republican university professors because the party tends to favor revelation over research. Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it (the Republican Party) has become the "party of theocracy." Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party. read about it (New York Times 4/5/05 article) Science Under Siege - The Fine Art of Manipulating Science Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job? Many say a disinformation campaign for years has distorted America's debate on global warming. The disinformation campaign gives the impression that scientists are broadly divided on the subject of global warming when, in fact they are not. It is just a small minority that are in opposition. read about it (ABC News 3/26/06 article) The New Science False Science: Right-wing idealogues have mastered the art of presenting false science as real science. read about it (Earthjustice 10/04 newsletter) Undermining Science: To accomplish their goal of undermining science, corporations pour a steady stream of money into think tanks that create a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of "scholars" whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers. This strategy of creating doubt about inconvenient research results has been very effective in discrediting research on global warming, and it is now being applied to evolution. read about it (New York Times 8/5/05 article) Follow The Money: When it comes to the small cadre of scientists who are skeptical about climate change and global warming, you may want to "follow the money". Most of them are funded directly by large corporations such as Exxon/Mobil or anti-government/science think-tanks such as the Cato Institute, neither of which support peer-reviewed science or research or global warming. Editorials/op-eds in the Wall Street Journal do not count either. The overwhelming consensus of scientific research indicates that human activity is exacerbating climate change. Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, atmosphere agrees that the evidence says the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2. Gov. Kaine office asks that U.Va. professor not use his state title in his private research The Virginia State Climatologist, Pat Michaels, is under scrutiny by the Virginia governor for taking funds from anti-global warming corporations for the purpose of undermining global warming research by other scientists, while doing this under the banner of the State Climatologist's office. read about it (Times-Dispatch 8/19/06 article) Science and Politics in 2004 and 2005 Three speakers discussed the involvement of scientists in the political process, providing their thoughts on topics ranging from negative reactions to this involvement to strategies for the coming year. read about it (American Institute of Physics 12/20/04 news alert) Many FDA Scientists Pressured Despite Drug Concerns, 2002 Survey Shows Almost one-fifth of the Food and Drug Administration scientists surveyed two years ago as part of an official review said they had been pressured to recommend approval of a new drug despite reservations about its safety, effectiveness or quality. read about it (Washington Post 12/15/04 article) FDA Scientists Issued Early Warnings on Drug Approvals (Union of Concerned Scientists 12/15/04 article) Question by question survey results (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) read about it (New York Times 12/17/04 article) Congress Trims Money for Science Agency Supporters of scientific research noted that the National Science Foundation cut came as lawmakers earmarked more money for local projects. The $105 million cut that Congress levied on the National Science Foundation signals harsher times to come. read about it (New York Times 11/30/04 article) read about it (New York Times 12/3/04 article) Of all the irresponsible aspects of the 2005 budget bill that the Republican-led Congress just passed, nothing could be more irresponsible than the fact that funding for the National Science Foundation was cut by nearly 2 percent, or $105 million. Think about this. We are facing a mounting crisis in science and engineering education. The generation of scientists, engineers and mathematicians who were spurred to get advanced degrees by the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik and the challenge by President John Kennedy to put a man on the moon is slowly retiring. If President Bush is looking for a legacy, I have just the one for him - a national science project that would be our generation's moon shot: a crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation to make America energy-independent in 10 years. read about it (New York Times 12/5/04 article) Congress Dismantling Weather Networks? - NOAA Loses Funding to Gather Long-Term Climate Data Congress has eliminated funding for a fledgling network of 110 observation stations intended to provide a definitive, long-term climate record for the United States. The surprise assault on the Climate Reference Network (CRN) was buried in the 3000-page omnibus spending package for 2005 signed last month by President George W. Bush. Legislators also took a bite out of a long-established atmospheric monitoring network that includes the historic time sequence of increasing carbon dioxide levels measured at Hawaii's Mauna Loa. Both networks are key pillars in a much-touted international "system of systems" for earth observation that the Bush Administration has called essential for resolving uncertainties in the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. read about it (American Association for the Advancement of Science 1/14/05 article) Caught Between Church and State -- Science vs. Religion: The Battle Over Evolution and Intelligent Design Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students. The Department of Education says it was a mistake. But come on! With religious fundamentalist extremists running the government, mistakes like this don't happen. This is yet ANOTHER attack on science by these Bush administration religious fanatics. read about it (New York Times 8/24/06 report) In New Method for Stem Cells, Viable Embryos Biologists have developed a technique for establishing colonies of human embryonic stem cells from an early human embryo without destroying it. This method, if confirmed in other laboratories, would seem to remove the principal objection to the research on the grounds of "protecting the unborn." Continued Republican objections to stem cell research now would prove that Republicans are on a fascist witch hunt against science, in fact against anyone who stands in their way of complete dictatorship. read about it (New York Times 8/24/06 report) Alliance for Science brings together Scientists and Christians The Alliance for Science is a new organization of scientists, scientific groups and supporters. The goal is to fight what they see as an assault on science from religious conservatives. The mission of the Alliance for Science is to heighten public understanding and support for science and to preserve the distinctions between science and religion in the public sphere. http://www.allianceforscience.org/ In St. Louis on February 19, 2006, an organization representing 10,000 Christian clergy from many denominations joined with scientists and educators to launch The Alliance for Science, which opposes the teaching of creationism/intelligent design in public schools. The announcement was part of an American Academy for the Advancement of Science symposium entitled, "Anti-Evolutionism in America – What’s Ahead." The symposium examined the current legal and educational challenges to teaching evolution taking place at all levels, as well as scientific content of both sides of the issue. Since the anti-evolutionary movement presumes a conflict between religion and science, the support for evolution among the 10,000 Christian clergy is particularly noteworthy. read about it (Alliance for Science 2/06 report) Scientists Oppose Religious Censorship, Support Evolution Many at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest gathering of scientists, spoke out over the weekend against what they called religious pressure in public schools. Creation science proponents twist the situation around. When confronted with the fact that they are imposing religion on science, the creationists accuse evolutionists and scientists of being anti-science. This is the exact opposite of what is happening. It is the creationists who are being anti-science. read about it (Associated Press 2/20/06 article) Anti-Darwin Bill Fails in Utah An anti-Darwin bill fails in conservative Republican-dominated Utah. read about it (New York Times 2/28/06 article) Deception--Less Scientific Doubt Over Evolution Than Promoted In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers. The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs, not from any question over the scientific validity of evolution. read about it (New York Times 2/21/06 article) Intelligent Design -- Faith, Not Science Judge Concludes Intelligent Design Should Not Be Taught As Science -- On December 20, a federal judge ruled unconstitutional an attempt by the Dover Area School Board in Dover, PA to amend the high school biology curriculum to raise doubts about the theory of evolution and offer Intelligent Design as an alternative. The judge further concluded that Intelligent Design "is not science." "We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.... [I]t is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research." (AIP, 12/28/05) Teaching intelligent design in schools would inevitably dilute our kids' quality of education (ACT, 10/9/05) Intelligent design is based on faith, not based on scientific fact. Intelligent design is strictly an untestable, religious theory that is basically an attempt to get the religious camel's nose under the educational tent flap. It must be understood that this is an attempt to introduce religious indoctrination into the formative years of American students. It is not a point of educational merit. Holt, Scientific Societies Oppose Teaching Intelligent Design as Science (AIP, 9/12/05) Physics Society President Says Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science (APS, 8/4/05) Marvin Cohen, president of the American Physical Society (APS), has stated that only scientifically validated theories, such as evolution, should be taught in the nation's science classes. Presidential science advisor John Marburger followed up on the President's comments in an interview on Tuesday, stating that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." President Confuses Science and Belief, Puts Schoolchildren at Risk (AGU, 9/12/05) "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses." "'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory." "When the tenets of critical thinking and scientific investigation are weakened in our classrooms, we are weakening our nation." (Rep. Holt, 9/12/05) Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), a physicist, spoke out this month against teaching intelligent design as science in the nation's classrooms. "A scientifically literate nation would not permit intelligent design to be presented and treated as a scientific theory," Holt wrote in an article appearing on the Internet. "Public school science classes are not the place to teach concepts that cannot be backed up by evidence and tested experimentally," he added. Forget science -- let's leave it all in God's hands Show Me the Science: Is there something scientific to Intelligent Design, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how the hoax of Intelligent Design has been done. read about it (New York Times 8/28/05 article) Monkey See, Monkey Do: Intelligent design's (ID) basic claim--that the human cell is too complex to be explained by natural selection--is unproven and probably unprovable. ID walks like science and talks like science but, so far, performs in the lab worse than medieval alchemy. The president's own science adviser, John H. Marburger III, admits, there is no real debate. "Intelligent design is not a scientific concept," Marburger told The New York Times, committing a bit of candor that will presumably earn him a trip to the White House woodshed. Evolution, despite its flaws, remains among the most durable theories in all of science. ID is essentially religion masquerading as science. Even as the president helps pit faith against science in the classroom, popes and other clerics have long known that religion and evolution are not truly at odds. Long before Darwin, enlightened Christians understood that religion and science are best kept in separate realms. read about it (Newsweek 8/15/05 article) Intelligent Design is good theology, but it isn't science: Mainstream scientists say that the claims of intelligent design run counter to a century of research supporting the explanatory and predictive power of Darwinian evolution, and that the design approach suffers from fundamental problems that place it outside the realm of science. For one thing, these scientists say, invoking a higher being as an explanation is unscientific. "One of the rules of science is, no miracles allowed," said Douglas H. Erwin, a paleobiologist at the Smithsonian Institution. "That's a fundamental presumption of what we do." That does not mean that scientists do not believe in God. Many do. But they see science as an effort to find out how the material world works, with nothing to say about why we are here or how we should live. read about it (New York Times 8/22/05 article) Grasping the Depth of Time as a First Step in Understanding Evolution: Evolution is a robust theory, in the scientific sense, that has been tested and confirmed again and again. Intelligent design is not a theory at all, as scientists understand the word, but a well-financed political and religious campaign to muddy science. Its basic proposition - the intervention of a designer, a k a God - cannot be tested. It has no evidence to offer, and its assumptions that humans were divinely created are the same as its conclusions. Its objections to evolution are based on syllogistic reasoning and a highly selective treatment of the physical evidence. Accepting the fact of evolution does not necessarily mean discarding a personal faith in God. But accepting intelligent design means discarding science. read about it (New York Times 8/23/05 article) To accomplish their goal of undermining science, corporations pour a steady stream of money into think tanks that create a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of "scholars" whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers. This strategy of creating doubt about inconvenient research results has been successful in discrediting research on global warming, and it is now being applied to evolution. All intelligent design has to do to be effective is create confusion about the validity of evolutionary theory. read about it (New York Times 8/5/05 article) read about it (New York Times 8/21/05 article) The Evolution "Controversy" -- Forcing Religion Into the Science Classroom The new challenges to teaching evolution are the product of 80 years of back-door pressure that has been mounting since the Scopes trial. They consist of the renewed determination of anti-evolution crusaders - buoyed by conservative gains in state and local elections - to force public school science classes to give equal time to religiously based speculation about the origins of life. Threats to the teaching of high-quality, peer-reviewed science continue to arise in school districts around the country. "Although the controversy focuses primarily on biology," National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts warned Academy members earlier this year that "some who challenge the teaching of evolution in our nation's schools have also focused their sights on the earth and physical sciences" (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/049.html). American Association of Physics Teachers Statement on the Teaching of Evolution and Cosmology: "The Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers is dismayed at organized actions to weaken and even to eliminate significant portions of evolution and cosmology from the educational objectives of states and school districts. Evolution and cosmology represent two of the unifying concepts of modern science. There are few scientific theories more firmly supported by observations than these." - read about it (AIP 5/18/05 report) Alarmed by proposals to change how evolution is taught, scientists and teachers are mobilizing to fight back, asserting that educational standards are being threatened by what they consider a stealth campaign to return creationism to public schools. "Intelligent design has no scientific credibility, but they very effectively market a controversy," said Steven B. Case, head of the Kansas science standards committee. Paleontologist Leonard Krishtalka called intelligent design "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo." He said the adoption of new standards would hurt the University of Kansas's ability to recruit faculty and students. "There's a great deal of hesitancy. They don't see this as a nurturing academic environment for themselves or their kids," said Krishtalka, director of the university's Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center. "It is ridiculous to backtrack to the 1700s and subvert our education to superstition and religion." - read about it (Washington Post 5/5/05 article) National Academy of Sciences President Urges Support for Teaching of Evolution: "[O]ne of the foundations of modern science is being neglected or banished outright from science classrooms in many parts of the United States." - read about it (AIP 4/6/05 report) Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens - read about it (Washington Post 3/13/05 article) Propelled by a polished strategy crafted by activists on America's political right, policymakers in 19 states are weighing proposals that question the science of evolution. Caught Between Church and State - read about it (New York Times 1/19/05 article) The Crafty Attacks on Evolution - read about it (New York Times 1/23/05 article) School boards need to recognize that neither creationism nor intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism as a scientific explanation of the evolution of life. God and Darwin - read about it (Washington Post 1/23/05 article) The deeply religious nature of the United States should not be allowed to stand in the way of the thirst for knowledge or the pursuit of science. Once it does, it won't be long before the American scientific community -- which already has trouble finding enough young Americans to fill its graduate schools -- ceases to lead the world. Evolution Takes a Back Seat in U.S. Classes - read about it (New York Times 2/1/05 article) Afraid to Discuss Evolution - read about it (New York Times 2/4/05 article) How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution - Biologists might do well to keep physics in mind as they confront creationism and "intelligent design" and battle to preserve the teaching of evolution in public schools. It is possible to believe in evolution and believe in God. Plenty of biologists do. But their deity is not a creator or intelligent agent at work in the material world in ways that transcend nature and its laws. That would be a matter of faith, not science. read about it (New York Times 7/5/05 article) Bible Course Becomes a Test for Public Schools in Texas - A religious advocacy group based in Greensboro, N.C., has been pressing a 12-year campaign to get school boards across the country to accept its Bible curriculum. But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures (it isn't), and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still (it doesn't). read about it (New York Times 8/1/05 article) Science and God Are Not Mutually Exclusive Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science: Some scientists' belief in God challenges other scientists who regard religious belief as little more than magical thinking. Their faith also challenges believers who denounce science as a godless enterprise and scientists as secular elitists contemptuous of God-fearing people. Some scientists say simply that science and religion are two separate realms, "nonoverlapping magisteria," as the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put it in his book "Rocks of Ages" (Ballantine, 1999). In Dr. Gould's view, science speaks with authority in the realm of "what the universe is made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory)" and religion holds sway over "questions of ultimate meaning and moral value." As scientists compare human genes with those of other mammals, tiny worms, even bacteria, the similarities "are absolutely compelling," Dr. Collins said. "If Darwin had tried to imagine a way to prove his theory, he could not have come up with something better, except maybe a time machine. Asking somebody to reject all of that in order to prove that they really do love God - what a horrible choice." Today, Dr. Collins said, he does not embrace any particular denomination, but he is a Christian. About God: Most scientists Dr. Weinberg knows who do believe in God believe in "a God who is behind the laws of nature but who is not intervening." About Science: Dr. Miller says, "belief is never an issue in science." For Dr. Miller and other scientists, research is not about belief. "Faith is one thing, what you believe from the heart," said Joseph E. Murray, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1990 for his work in organ transplantation. But in scientific research, he said, "it's the results that count." Although they embrace religious faith, believing scientists also embrace science as it has been defined for centuries. That is, they look to the natural world for explanations of what happens in the natural world and they recognize that scientific ideas must be provisional - capable of being overturned by evidence from experimentation and observation. read about it (New York Times 8/23/05 article) Subverting Science The Bush administration's reputation for tailoring scientific information to fit its political agenda was reinforced last week on the issue of global warming. A top NASA climate expert (Dr. James E. Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan) who twice briefed Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming criticized the administration's approach to the issue in a lecture at the University of Iowa and sid that a senior administration official told him last year not to discuss dangerous consequences of rising temperatures. read about it (New York Times 10/31/04 article) read about it (New York Times 10/26/04 article) The status of science has sunk so low that the government needs these disciplines to become sexy again among students or the brain drain will threaten national security. One of the reasons we have fewer science majors is the pernicious and false right-wing notion that conventional biology is vaguely atheistic. Furthermore, Bush's policy of politicizing science--retreating from the field of facts and evidence on everything from evolution to global warming to the number of cell lines available to justify his 2001 stem-cell compromise--will eventually wreak havoc with his legacy. Until then, like his masquerade-ball friends, the president will get more clever at harming science while pretending to promote it. For example, the scholarly articles of intelligent design are often well written and provocative. But the science within these papers has been demolished over and over by other scientists. As Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller explains, science is perhaps the last true marketplace of ideas. After a decade in circulation, intelligent design has failed the market test. So now its backers are seeking the equivalent of a government bailout, by going around their scientific peers to Red State politicians trying to slip religious dogma into the classroom. This is wrong. Long before Darwin, enlightened Christians understood that religion and science are best kept in separate realms. read about it (Newsweek 8/15/05 article) Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue For nearly four years, and with rising intensity, scientists in and out of government have criticized the Bush administration, saying it has selected or suppressed research findings to suit preset policies, skewed advisory panels or ignored unwelcome advice, and quashed discussion within federal research agencies. (P)olitical action by scientists has not been so forceful since 1964, when Barry Goldwater's statements promoting the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons spawned the creation of the 100,000-member group Scientists and Engineers for Johnson. How did this come to be? Several dozen interviews with administration officials and with scientists in and out of government, along with a variety of documents, show that the core of the clash is over instances in which scientists say that objective and relevant information is ignored or distorted in service of pre-established policy goals. Scientists were essentially locked out of important internal White House debates; candidates for advisory panels were asked about their politics as well as their scientific work; and the White House exerted broad control over how scientific findings were to be presented in public reports or news releases. read about it (New York Times 10/19/04 article) Identity Badge Worn Under Skin Approved for Use in Health Care The F.D.A. cleared the way for a company to market implantable microchips that would provide easy access to medical records. The approval, which the company announced yesterday, is expected to bring to public attention a simmering debate over a technology that has evoked Orwellian overtones for privacy advocates and fueled fears of widespread tracking of people with implanted radio frequency tags. read about it (New York Times 10/14/04 article) Junking Science The Bush administration has from time to time found it convenient to distort science to serve political ends. The result is a purposeful confusion of scientific protocols in which "sound science" becomes whatever the administration says it is. In the short run, this is a tactic to override basic environmental protections in favor of industry. In the long run, it undermines the authority of science itself. The latest example of the Bush administration's deliberate scientific confusion concerns the marbled murrelet, an endangered seabird. read about it (New York Times 9/14/04 article) For Honest Reports of Drug Trials Twelve major medical journals have taken a step towards transparency in drug trial reporting that deserves to be backed by a federal law. read about it (New York Times 9/11/04 article) Flying Blind: The Decline of Science Policy Advice The U.S. government is poorly configured to produce, receive and act upon scientifically literate and technically informed policy advice, according to a new report from the Federation of American Scientists. "The need for effective science and technology advice continues to increase while the infrastructure for providing such help is in a state of crisis," the report begins. Among other structural problems, "the gap created by the loss of the congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1996 has not been filled." Meanwhile, science advice to the executive branch has declined with the effective demotion of the president's science advisor in the Bush Administration. Furthermore, arbitrary and ill-considered controls on public access to certain scientific and technical information have impeded policy formulation and public accountability. The FAS study proposes a series of policy options for addressing these problems and reversing the decline in science advice to government, should there be a will to do so. Read about it: Federation of American Scientists: "Flying Blind: The Rise, Fall, and Possible Resurrection of Science Policy Advice in the United States," by Henry Kelly, Ivan Oelrich, Steven Aftergood, and Benn H. Tannenbaum, December 2004 (117 pages, 355 KB PDF file): http://www.fas.org/pub/flyingblind.pdf National Academy of Sciences: Don't politicize science It is "inappropriate" to ask scientists being considered for federal government advisory committees their political affiliations, voting records, or positions on particular policies, according to a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report released yesterday (November 17). Scientists, engineers, and health professionals nominated to serve on government advisory committees "should be selected for their scientific and technical knowledge and credentials and their professional and personal integrity," said John E. Porter, chairman of the NAS panel. read about it (The Scientist 11/18/04 article) NAS report Restoring Integrity to Science Policy In the past year, three landmark reports have called into question the Bush Administration's use of science, charging the Administration with regularly censoring, suppressing and distorting scientific analysis from federal agencies and undermining the quality of scientific advisory panels. Leading scientists - including 48 Nobel Laureates , 62 National Medal of Science winners, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences-have called for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. Scientific Censorship http://scientistsandengineersforchange.org/index.php home page The Bush Record on Science Scientists and Engineers for Change is a new political committee that believes science and technology are crucial building blocks for American prosperity that have not be adequately managed in the last four years. They dispatch leading scientists and engineers to college campuses and other places they can talk about embryonic stem cell research, global climate change and the other science and technology issues. From downgrading of the position of science adviser, to tepid support for scientific funding and opportunities, to distorting scientific advice and findings, the Bush administration has pioneered a less-than ethical approach to scientific policymaking that will harm our nation for years to come. The Bush Record on Science http://scientistsandengineersforchange.org/index.php home page National Academy of Sciences probes politics, science Members of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel yesterday (July 21) challenged senior Bush administration officials over the propriety of asking the political affiliations and policy positions of scientists being considered for federal government advisory committees. read about it (The Scientist 7/22/04 article) 'Data Quality' Law Is Not About Good Science, Was Written To Be A Nemesis of Regulation The Data Quality Act -- written by an industry lobbyist and slipped into a giant appropriations bill in 2000 without congressional discussion or debate -- is used as a cudgel to beat back regulation. (T)he Data Quality Act (is) a little-known piece of legislation that, under President Bush's Office of Management and Budget, has become a potent tool for companies seeking to beat back regulation. The Data Quality Act -- written by an industry lobbyist and slipped into a giant appropriations bill in 2000 without congressional discussion or debate -- is just two sentences directing the OMB to ensure that all information disseminated by the federal government is reliable. But the Bush administration's interpretation of those two sentences could tip the balance in regulatory disputes that weigh the interests of consumers and businesses. ... Environmental and consumer groups say the Data Quality Act fits into a larger Bush administration agenda. In the past six months, more than 4,000 scientists, including dozens of Nobel laureates and 11 winners of the National Medal of Science, have signed statements accusing the administration of politicizing science. The White House's heavy editing of a key global-warming report, its efforts to emphasize abstinence rather than condoms in the war against AIDS and its alleged stacking of scientific advisory committees have drawn particular ire. But many scientists and public advocates believe that far more is at stake with the Data Quality Act. From their perspective, the act is shifting the authority over the nation's science into the politicized environment of the OMB -- a change, they say, that will favor big business. read about it (Washington Post 8/16/04 article) Sneaky Changes to Regulations Affect Science and Other Government Policy The administration has employed a subtle aspect of presidential power to implement far-reaching policy changes. Most of the decisions are made without the public attention that accompanies congressional debate. -- Tuberculosis had sneaked up again, reappearing with alarming frequency across the United States. The government began writing rules to protect 5 million people whose jobs put them in special danger. Hospitals and homeless shelters, prisons and drug treatment centers -- all would be required to test their employees for TB, hand out breathing masks and quarantine those with the disease. These steps, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration predicted, could prevent 25,000 infections a year and 135 deaths. By the time President Bush moved into the White House, the tuberculosis rules, first envisioned in 1993, were nearly complete. But the new administration did nothing on the issue for the next three years. Then, on the last day of 2003, in an action so obscure it was not mentioned in any major newspaper in the country, the administration canceled the rules. Voluntary measures, federal officials said, were effective enough to make regulation unnecessary. ... The (Washington Post) analysis, combined with the more detailed look at specific regulatory decisions, shows how an administration can employ this subtle aspect of presidential power to implement far-reaching policy changes. Most of the decisions are made without the public attention that accompanies congressional debate. Under Bush, these decisions have spanned logging in national forests, patients' rights in government health insurance programs, tests for tainted packaged meats, Indian land transactions and grants to religious charities. read about it (Washington Post 8/15/04 article) Bush and Science at Loggerheads -- Barriers to research and claims of suppressed data sully interactions between researchers and the administration Complaints against the administration stem from its suppression of government science information and manipulation of government science reports to remove information not favorable to its political views, posting misleading information on scientific websites, placing controversial people in scientific positions, and stacking scientific advisory panels by eliminating people who supported Bush's 2000 election rivals or picking others who lacked scientific credentials, but who supported the president's views. With respect to the climate change issue, George Woodwell, director of the Woods Hole Research Center, claims that the Bush administration "does not want to hear from the scientists within the government that there is a serious problem." And the reason for that, he asserts, is "the administration wishes to perpetuate the fossil-fuel era." He continues: "This means money for people who have heavy investments in the fossil-fuel business. Those investments pervade virtually everything." (And) critics claim that the administration distorts scientific findings so that the White House can draw public-policy conclusions in line with conservative voters. read about it (The Scientist 8/2/04 article) U.S. science policy swayed by politics The Bush administration is still packing scientific advisory panels with ideologues and is imposing strict controls on researchers who want to share ideas with colleagues in other countries, a group of scientists charged Thursday. The Union of Concerned Scientists said in a report that the administration's policies could take years to undo, and in the meantime the best and the brightest would be frightened away from jobs in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other government institutions. The union, chaired by Dr. Kurt Gottfried, emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University, said more than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, had joined the call for "restoration of scientific integrity in federal policymaking." Potential candidates for scientific panels are being asked "inappropriate questions" by government reviewers, NIH staffers are being harrassed, and university researchers writing reports for the government are being "warned by the government to remove facts that undermined policy." read about it (ENN 7/9/04 article) Experts in Sex Field Say Conservatives Interfere With Health and Research For years, Advocates for Youth, a Washington-based organization devoted to adolescent sexual health, says, it received government grants without much trouble. Then last year it was subjected to three federal reviews. ... "For 20 years, it was about health and science, and now we have a political ideological approach," he said. "Never have we experienced a climate of intimidation and censorship as we have today." Mr. Wagoner is among the professionals in sex-related fields who have started speaking out against what they say is growing interference from conservatives in and out of government with their work in research, education and disease prevention. read about it (New York Times 7/11/04 article) Drugmakers Prefer Silence On Test Data The pharmaceutical industry has repeatedly violated federal law by failing to disclose the existence of large numbers of its clinical trials to a government database, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Doctors and patients say that compliance with the law would go a long way toward addressing their growing concerns that they are not being given the full picture about the effectiveness of many drugs because they are not told about drug trials that fail. ... The 1997 law is so little known that scientific journal editors and professional medical associations have recently debated whether to create a system of private incentives for disclosure of trials. When she was told the law already requires companies to register trials, Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association, said, "That's a surprise to me. Tell me why it's not enforced." ... The FDA acknowledges it has not enforced the law -- officials said the statute (which was passed by a Republican Congress) did not spell out penalties or explicitly give the agency authority to crack down on violators. read about it (Washington Post 7/6/04 article) Drug company, interested only in profits, overrules a warning from its own scientists Evidence in Vioxx Suits Shows Intervention by Merck Officials. Merck overruled one of its own scientists after he suggested that a patient in a clinical trial had probably died of a heart attack. read about it (New York Times 4/24/05 article) Federal whistleblower quits, alleges politicization of science A federal biologist who said his team's advice was illegally ignored prior to a massive 2002 Klamath River fish kill has resigned, accusing the government of politicizing scientific decision-making and misleading the public. read about it (ENN 5/21/04 article) Using Pseudoscience and Lies in Opposition to Condoms Expendable Women -- One of the uglier aspects of the Bush administration's assault on women's reproductive rights is its concerted undermining of the United Nations Population Fund based on the false accusation that it supports coerced abortions in China. The fund supports programs in some 141 countries to advance poor women's reproductive health, reduce infant mortality, end the sexual trafficking of women and prevent the spread of H.I.V. and AIDS. Yet under pressure from conservative religious groups, the administration is expected to withhold the $34 million that Congress appropriated this year for these vital efforts, much as President Bush blocked the $34 million Congress approved in 2002 and last year's $25 million allocation. read about it (New York Times 7/5/04 article) Spurred by the religious right, the administration and Congress have fenced off one-third of the nation's international AIDS prevention funds to be used for abstinence programs starting in 2006, even though such programs alone are insufficient. The administration is using pseudoscience to justify its decisions. Randall Tobias, its AIDS coordinator, has said numerous times that condoms are not effective at preventing the spread of AIDS in the general population. He repeated this assertion while testifying in the House of Representatives in March, citing the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Mr. Tobias is wrong. The dean of the London School wrote to him to say that the school had never produced any such report, and that its research shows that condoms do work. Ugandans — and more neutral researchers — say that condom use plays a big role (in reducing AIDS transmission). In Zambia and Brazil, condom use has also reduced AIDS transmission, but administration officials do not talk about these countries. read about it (New York Times 5/18/04 article) In the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush maintained a studiously moderate stance on social issues. Once he assumed office in January 2001, he betrayed that position and delighted his right-wing base by attaching antiabortion conditions to foreign assistance. .... Forcing an organization to censor its views as a condition of receiving government money (is) unconstitutional on free-speech grounds in this country. ... Abortion will always be an agonizing issue, and the right balance between abstinence and contraception is a fair subject for debate. But the attempt to deny conference platforms to groups that oppose the administration's view is inimical both to free speech and to scientific inquiry. To attack a conference of public health specialists, canceling grants that would have been used to allow delegates from developing countries to attend, is to drag the battles over abortion and conservative values into forums where they have no place. read about it (Washington Post 6/16/04 article) Ensuring the Integrity of the Scientific Advisory System Based on allegations that officials in the Bush Administration have, for political and ideological reasons, manipulated scientific advisory committees, reports, and information, several Democratic Members of Congress asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the federal government's policies for staffing scientific advisory committees. read about it (American Institute of Physics 5/20/04 report) Reps. Johnson and Baird letter to President Bush: www.house.gov/science_democrats/member/johnson_baird_letter.pdf The GAO report, "Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance," can be found at www.gao.gov/new.items/d04328.pdf Limits on Stem-Cell Research Re-emerge as a Political Issue While it is wrong to leave the impression that stem cell cures may be just around the corner, President Bush's limits will make successes harder. read about it (New York Times 8/15/04 article) The debate over embryonic stem-cell research, which occupied President Bush during his early days in the White House, is re-emerging as an election issue as advocates for patients, including Nancy Reagan, press the president to loosen the limits on federal financing for the science. Mrs. Reagan, whose husband, former President Ronald Reagan, suffers from Alzheimer's disease, has made her support for the research known but has never spoken publicly about it. She is expected to do so in Beverly Hills on Saturday night at a star-studded fund-raiser sponsored by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. ... The diabetes foundation says the policy is impeding science. It has been sending patients to lobby lawmakers in Washington and has found some unlikely allies in Congress. Last week, 206 members of the House, including some in the Republican leadership and nearly three dozen opponents of abortion, signed a letter urging Mr. Bush to allow the federal government to finance studies on embryos left over from in vitro fertilization clinics, which would otherwise be discarded. ... The Republican leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, told reporters on Tuesday that while he supported the president's policy he would like to see it reviewed. ... He added, "I'm very interested in answering the question whether or not scientists are really leaving this country in droves because of the limitations on research." ... Opponents of the research are exerting their own pressure on the White House ... Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, who has been the leading opponent of embryonic stem-cell research, said he would work to block any attempt to expand the policy, and Representative Tom DeLay, the House Republican leader, said an expansion was not necessary. read about it (New York Times 5/6/04 article) Nancy Reagan Calls For Stem Cell Research -- Former First Lady Makes Plea in Speech. Former first lady Nancy Reagan endorsed stem cell research Saturday night and made an impassioned call for taking the controversial procedure out of the political arena, saying it could help cure illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease, which afflicts her husband.  She added: "Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp. . . . We have lost so much time already. I just really can't bear to lose any more." read about it (Washington Post 5/10/04 article) The Bush administration's restrictions on federal funds for embryonic stem cell research are so potentially damaging to medicine that they are encountering opposition even among the administration's own conservative supporters. The latest sign of conservative misgivings came at a fund-raising gala sponsored by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation last Saturday, when Nancy Reagan made a public plea for support of stem cell research. read about it (New York Times 5/11/04 article) A majority of the Senate, including 14 Republicans, have sent a letter to President Bush asking him to loosen the restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research that he imposed nearly three years ago. The letter, dated Friday, echoes a similar plea signed last month by 206 members of the House. read about it (Washington Post 6/8/04 article) More Mad Cow Mischief The federal Department of Agriculture is making it hard for anyone to feel confident that the nation is adequately protected against mad cow disease. At a time when the department should be bending over backward to reassure consumers, it keeps taking actions that suggest more concern with protecting the financial interests of the beef industry than with protecting public health. read about it (New York Times 5/8/04 article) Morning-After-Pill Ruling Defies Norm Dr. Steven Galson, acting director of the Food and Drug Administration's center for drug evaluation and research, rejected not only the judgment of an advisory panel but also the recommendations of his own staff when he refused to allow a morning-after pill to be sold over the counter. In interviews yesterday, several former F.D.A. officials said that they could not remember another instance in which Dr. Galson, a career officer in the public health service, or any of his predecessors had overruled both an advisory committee and staff recommendations. Their comments came in the midst of a fierce debate about whether the agency's decision was based primarily in science or politics. read about it (New York Times 5/8/04 article) Government Expert Kept From Speaking at Antidepressant Hearing Top Food and Drug Administration officials admitted yesterday that they barred the agency's top expert from testifying at a public hearing about his conclusion that antidepressants cause children to become suicidal because they viewed his findings as alarmist and premature. Dr. Robert Temple, the FDA's associate director of medical policy, said, "There is concern that we hid data. We did not hide data. It was there for all to see." Dr. Andrew D. Mosholder, an agency epidemiologist, was the man charged with analyzing 22 studies involving 4,250 children and seven drugs. In a carefully argued, 33-page memorandum, he concluded that children given antidepressants were almost twice as likely as those given placebos to become suicidal. Dr. Mosholder was scheduled to speak at a special advisory committee to address the issue. He was removed from the agenda, Dr. Temple said. Senator Charles E. Grassley, a Republican from Iowa and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said he was investigating whether the agency inappropriately suppressed crucial findings. Representative Joe L. Barton, a Republican from Texas who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he was also investigating. The FDA declined to make Dr. Mosholder available for an interview. read about it (New York Times 4/16/04 article) The Professionals' Revolt Empiricists are people who take in as much information as they can and derive their conclusions on that basis. In the Bush administration, you're an empiricist at your own peril. Plainly, this has placed any number of conscientious civil servants -- from Foster, who totaled the costs on Medicare, to Clarke, who charted the al Qaeda leads before Sept. 11 -- at risk. In a White House where ideology trumps information time and again, you run the numbers at your own risk. The revolt of the professionals poses a huge problem for the Bush presidency precisely because it is not coming from its ideological antagonists. The common indictment that these critics are leveling at the administration is that it is impervious to facts. read about it (Washington Post 3/24/04 article) You Can Use God to Justify Anything In unstable societies, there is an expanded capacity of traditional religion to go dangerously wrong. But even in stable societies, such as our own, what should be rational scientific and medical debates on subjects like stem cell research are bombarded by religious sloganeering. read about it (The Nation article) Jimmy Carter Explains How the Christian Right Isn't Christian at All (The American Prospect article) Bush's public displays of 'godliness' can't mask actions that Jesus wouldn't stomach read about it (The Asheville Citizen-Times editorial) Christian Principles in an Election Year (National Council of Churches, USA) If Jesus were running for President ... (http://www2.warnerbros.com/madmagazine/files/onthestands/ots_446/jesus.html) Even as the president helps pit faith against science in the classroom, popes and other clerics have long known that religion and evolution are not truly at odds. Long before Darwin, enlightened Christians understood that religion and science are best kept in separate realms. read about it (Newsweek 8/15/05 article) Big Pharma, Bad Science Drug company gifts and "consulting fees" are so pervasive that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. So, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed. This announcement by the New England Journal of Medicine is just the tip of the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been pervasively corrupted by conflicts of interest and bias, throwing doubt on almost all scientific claims made in the biomedical field. read about it (The Nation article) Lost in Space One of the worst aspects of the Bush Administration is its contempt for science. Bush policies disregard serious research--on the effectiveness of condoms to prevent HIV, on the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only sex education--and shun the promise of stem cell research, all in obedience to the crabbed sexual taboos of the right. read about it (The Nation article) The New Scopes Trials In the Bush Administration, when the religious right or big business weighs in on a matter of science, politics usually prevails. Scientific panels and committees have proven especially susceptible to political manipulation by the White House. So while this President may lack the powerful eloquence of William Jennings Bryan, in the world of science he's the modern equivalent of the Great Orator defeating the infidels of evolution in the Scopes Trial of 1925. read about it (The Nation article) The Junk Science of George W. Bush Today, flat-earthers within the Bush Administration--aided by right-wing allies who have produced assorted hired guns and conservative think tanks to further their goals--are engaged in a campaign to suppress science that is arguably unmatched in the Western world since the Inquisition. Sometimes, rather than suppress good science, they simply order up their own. Meanwhile, the Bush White House is purging, censoring and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the profits of the Administration's corporate paymasters or challenges the ideological underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental agenda. read about it (The Nation article) Democrats Demand Inquiry Into Charge by Medicare Officer Inquiry Confirms Top Medicare Official Threatened Actuary Over Cost of Drug Benefits -- An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged. A report on the investigation, issued Tuesday, says the administrator of Medicare, Thomas A. Scully, issued the threat to Richard S. Foster while lawmakers were considering huge changes in the program last year. As a result, Mr. Foster's cost estimate did not become known until after the legislation was enacted. ... Mr. Scully, who resigned in December, in part to become a lobbyist for health care companies, had denied threatening Mr. Foster but had acknowledged having told him to withhold the information from Congress. read about it (New York Times article, 7/7/04) Same silencing tactics that are being used against scientists are being used against Medicare officials. Democrats charged that the Bush administration threatened to fire a top Medicare official if he gave data to Congress showing the high costs of hotly contested Medicare legislation. read about it (New York Times article, 3/14/04) read about it (New York Times article, 3/18/04) read about it (New York Times article, 3/20/04) Beware Republican doublespeak on "sound science" When George W. Bush and members of his administration talk about environmental policy, the phrase "sound science" rarely goes unuttered. Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives, led by Reps. Chris Cannon of Utah and Jim Gibbons of Nevada, have announced the formation of a "Sound Science Caucus" to ramp up the role of "empirical" and "peer reviewed" data in laws such as the Endangered Species Act. And last August the Office of Management and Budget unveiled a proposal to amplify the role of "peer review" in the evaluation of scientific research conducted by federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It all sounds noble enough, but the phrases "sound science" and "peer review" don't necessarily mean what you might think. Instead, they're part of a lexicon used to put a pro-science veneer on policies that most of the scientific community itself tends to be up in arms about. In this Orwellian vocabulary, "peer review" isn't simply an evaluation by learned colleagues. Instead, it appears to mean an industry-friendly plan to require such exhaustive analysis that federal agencies could have a hard time taking prompt action to protect public health and the environment. And "sound science" can mean, well, not-so-sound science. read about it (Washington Post article) President's Science Policy Questioned: Scientists Worry That Any Politics Will Compromise Their Credibility In two independent reports released yesterday, groups of prestigious scientists raised concerns about the role of politics in the formulation of Bush administration science policy and urged greater oversight by independent organizations. A National Research Council report praised the administration for its revised climate-change research plan, but it questioned whether new initiatives would receive adequate funding and warned that participation of political appointees in the program could cause it "to be influenced by political considerations." read about it (Washington Post article) Scientist 'gagged' after global warming warning Downing Street tried to muzzle the U.K.'s top scientific adviser after he warned that global warming was a greater threat than terrorism. Mr Blair's principal private secretary told Sir David King, the Prime Minister's chief scientist, to limit his contact with the media after he made outspoken comments about President George Bush's policy on climate change. In a leaked memo, Mr Rogers ordered Sir David - a Cambridge University chemist who offers independent advice to ministers - to decline any interview requests from British and American newspapers and BBC Radio 4's Today. ... Sir David ... has been primed with a list of 136 mock questions that the media could ask if they were able to get access to him, and the suggested answers he should be prepared to give. read about it (The Independent article) Two more scientists 'let go' on science panel Last week, two members of the President's Council on Bioethics, which advises on stem cell research and other issues, were told that their two-year terms would not be renewed. Their dismissal was protested in a letter sent to President Bush by Dr. Arthur Caplan, an ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania and 131 others. One of the panel members, Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn of the University of California, San Francisco, attributed her dismissal to the fact that she had strongly dissented from some of the council's positions. read about it (New York Times article) The partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical continues The Bush White House has made it clear that it will destroy the careers of scientists, budget experts, intelligence operatives and even military officers who don't toe the line. The right-wing corruption of our government system — the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical — continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve. read about it (New York Times article) U.S. Scientist Tells of Pressure to Lift Bans on Food Imports Before Tested for Safety A senior scientist at the Department of Agriculture says its scientific experts have been pressured by top officials to approve products for Americans to eat before their safety can be confirmed. The senior scientist spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of dismissal. The scientist's concerns were echoed by several scientific groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project, which say the Agriculture Department has pressured scientists to protect industries or countries favored by the Bush administration. read about it (New York Times article) Science or Politics at the F.D.A.? Nearly 25 cents of every consumer dollar is spent on products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. We count on the FDA for the safety and effectiveness of our medicines, vaccines and medical devices, and for the safety of the blood and food supply. What is happening now and what has been happening for the last 5 years is an FDA whose decisions are being dictated by the politics of the extreme right, not by science as they should be. read about it (Washington Post 2/28/06 article) In December, two advisory committees to the Food and Drug Administration voted by a 23-to-4 margin to recommend that the agency allow sales of the "morning after" pill without a doctor's prescription. The agency now says it needs an additional 90 days to decide whether to allow timely access to the emergency contraceptive, known as Plan B, by granting over-the-counter status. With opposition to the over-the-counter "morning after" pill mounting on the right, the F.D.A.'s delay in approving it is cause for concern. read about it (New York Times article) Scientists Say Administration Distorts Facts More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad. The sweeping accusations were later discussed in a conference call organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. On Wednesday, the organization also issued a 38-page report detailing its accusations. The two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases. read about it (New York Times article) read about it (New York Times Feb. 18 editorial) read about it (New York Times Feb. 23 editorial: Uses and Abuses of Science) Although the Bush administration is hardly the first to politicize science, no administration in recent memory has so shamelessly distorted scientific findings for policy reasons or suppressed them when they conflict with political goals. read about it (ENN article) kuro5hin - Technology and Culture from the Trenches - Bush administration distorting science to support political agendas MSNBC - White House science policy draws fire OneWorld.net - Ranking Scientists Warn Bush Science Policy Lacks Integrity Bush GreenWatch Namibian World News - Bush Administration Distorts Science The Globe - Bush administration fudging data, top scientists warn ThePetitionSite.com - Protest Bush Administration's Misuse of Science Houston Chronicle - Group says Bush distorts science to push policies scienceinpolicy.org - The Bush administration justifies environmental policies by misusing and misrepresenting science. If you agree with it, please sign our statement. Union of Concerned Scientists press release (read about it) UCS report---Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science - http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/report.html Global warming is real and underway - http://www2.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm OMB Watch report -- Administration Stacks Scientific Advisory Panels (read about it) Major Scientists Say Bush Promotes Pseudo-Science (read about it) Casper Star-Tribune report - White House Distorts Science for Political Ends (read about it) Report of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform's Minority Staff Special Investigations Division - Politics and Science in the Bush Administration (global warming section) Science Gets Sacked (The Nation) - The Administration "has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings," says the report, precipitating "misleading statements by the president, inaccurate responses to Congress...erroneous international communications and the gagging of scientists." (read about it) Report by REP America, the national grassroots organization of Republicans for environmental protection - Withholding of vital environmental information is getting to be a bad habit with the Bush administration (read about it) Like a good soldier, the Bush administration's chief science adviser fired back yesterday at a scientists' advocacy group that had accused the administration of distorting facts to support a conservative political agenda. The rebuttal by John H. Marburger III, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was issued at a time of increasing scrutiny of the Bush administration's relationship with science. The administration has for many months been under fire from critics alleging that officials have ignored certain scientific findings, changed Web sites, revised or eliminated wording in reports, and altered the makeup of advisory committees in ways that bowed to political priorities. Kurt Gottfried, a professor emeritus of physics at Cornell University and chairman of the UCS, said he had read only part of the rebuttal but was so far unconvinced. Washington Post article (read about it) New York Times article (read about it) Interfaith Alliance Opposes Traditional Values Coalition's Anti-Science Agenda The Interfaith Alliance was formed to counter the anti-science agenda and McCarthy-like tactics of groups like the Traditional Values Coalition. According to Walter Cronkite, groups like the Traditional Values Coalition "have shrewdly twisted the traditional healing role of religion into an intolerant, political platform ... Using religion as a tool to push their personal political beliefs -- especially in a time of national tragedy -- not only insults people of faith and good will, it also diminishes the positive healing role religion can and should play in public life ... The Interfaith Alliance is a non-partisan, grassroots organiztion of people from more than 70 faith traditions. It's the only organization working full-time to challenge religious political extremism, while promoting the healing role of faith in public life." Learn more about the Interfaith Alliance Jimmy Carter Explains How the Christian Right Isn't Christian at All (The American Prospect article) Science by Bureaucratic Edict A proposed set of guidelines for middle and high school science classes in Georgia has caused a furor after state education officials removed the word "evolution" and scaled back ideas about the age of Earth and the natural selection of species. read about it (New York Times article) In a cross between McCarthy-like and Nazi-like tactics, anti-gay forces are censoring science A list of nearly 200 scientific researchers has been compiled and given to federal officials by the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative group that goes wild over gay issues and federal funding of research related to human sexuality. ... The list, which has sent a chill through some researchers, is being used by the coalition and its government allies in attempts to discredit the researchers and challenge or revoke their federal grants. It's a sloppy, dangerous and wildly inaccurate list, put together by people who are freaked out by the content of the studies, and unconcerned about their value. ... "Those inquiries come in a very negative tone," said Dr. Auerbach. "And they cast aspersions on the quality and the content of the science -- from someone who doesn't know how to conduct science, and is not a scientist. So the N.I.H. has been put in the position frequently in the last year of having to re-justify research that has already been peer-reviewed, approved and funded." ... The public officials who got their hands on this sinister list could have thrown it in the garbage. Instead, the list is circulating, like an insidious disease, and some scientists are worried that they are not immune. read more about it (NYT article) New York Times article This is just one example of the new Republican Party's policies -- a stern and intrusive government to regulate the citizenry, but a hands-off attitude toward business. read more about it (NYT article) New York Times article Scientific Societies Defend Peer-Reviewed Science in K-12 Classrooms Working with many of its Member Societies, the American Institute of Physics began last year to take a more active role in trying to ensure that the science taught in K-12 classrooms remains high-quality, peer-reviewed science and is not diluted by religious theories. read about it (01/14/04 AIP report) read about it (03/24/04 AIP report) Scientific Boehner: The new creationism and the congressmen who support it. (The American Prospect 6/5/02 article) The National Academy of Sciences stated quite categorically that "intelligent design … [is] not science because [it is] not testable by the methods of science" in its definitive 1999 investigation, Science and Creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences. No amount of dressing the issue up in scientific terms can circumvent this problem. Until the "scientific creationists" come up with a theory that can be submitted, in its entirety, to scientific tests, they must recognize that what they are proposing to teach in schools is religious faith, not science. Thousand-Year Temperature Record Under Attack Scientists in non-climate fields have launched poorly-done research attacking the consensus temperature record for the last 1000 years reconstructed from paleoclimate sources. "There are serious questions regarding the manner in which MM (the contenders) have attempted to implement the (original researchers') Mann et al. method, and specific problems with the(ir) selection of predictors. Amazingly, the journal that published the MM work made no attempt to provide Mann et al. with the opportunity to review the MM paper or establish the details of the MM work (which is standard scientific peer review procedure)." -- Drs. Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones (global climate specialists) "But the bottom line is that there are some serious questions about the work that was done in that article... part of the effort by some to discredit the global warming theory for fear of the short-term costs in dealing with the root causes." -- Jay Lawrimore Another study going against the scientific consensus on global warming "was flawed and it shouldn't have been published," said Hans von Storch, former editor-in-chief of the journal it was published in. That study was partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, which opposes actions to correct for global warming. "This paper is not serious science but a politically motivated attempt to discredit the reconstruction of Mann et al. [MM] did not publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, but in a social science journal with an editor who has been actively campaigning against the Kyoto accord for a long time." -- Stefan Rahmstorf read about it (USA Today article) read about it (email posts to CLIMLIST and AASC listservers) read about it (email posts to PALEOCLIMATE listserver) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (IPCC report) preliminary response by Mann et al. University of Bern, Switzerland, Researchers: 2003 Likely Europe's Hottest in 500 Years - read about it (AP report) The Growing -- and Dangerous -- Divide Between Scientists and the GOP The White House seems to have pushed scientific concerns down toward the bottom of its list of priorities. When required to seek input from scientists, the administration tends to actively recruit those few who will bolster the positions it already knows it wants to support, even if that means defying scientific consensus. As with Bush's inquiry into stem-cell research, when preparing important policy decisions, the White House wants scientists to give them validation, not grief. The administration has stacked hitherto apolitical scientific advisory committees, and even an ergonomics study section, which is just a research group and has no policy making role. Bush has also taken to unprecedented levels the political vetting of nominees for advisory committees. "Not only does the Bush administration scorn science; it is subjecting appointments to scientific advisory committees and even study sections to political tests," says Donald Kennedy, editor in chief of Science, the community's flagship publication. Democrats will only go so far down the path of ignoring scientific evidence because they don't want to alienate their scientific supporters. Increasingly, the Republicans feel little such restraint. Hence the Bush administration's propensity to tout scientific evidence only when it suits them politically. The administration's stem-cell stand is just one of many examples, from climate change to abstinence-only sex-education programs, in which the White House has made policies that defy widely accepted scientific opinion. Why this administration feels unbound by the consensus of academic scientists can be gleaned, in part, from a telling anecdote in Nicholas Lemann's recent New Yorker profile of Karl Rove. When asked by Lemann to define a Democrat, Bush's chief political strategist replied, "Somebody with a doctorate." Lemann noted, "This he said with perhaps the suggestion of a smirk." Fundamentally, much of today's GOP, like Rove, seems to smirkingly equate academics, including scientists, with liberals. Bush, decided to support a bill sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) to ban all forms of embryonic cloning. Jack Gibbons, a former head of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, calls Bush's proposed ban "an attempt to throttle science, not to govern technology." Harold Varmus, the former NIH director, believes that "this is the first time that the [federal] government has ever tried to criminalize science." read about it (Washington Monthly article) Washington Monthly article An Academic Question There are so few Republican university professors because the party tends to favor revelation over research. Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it (the Republican Party) has become the "party of theocracy." Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party. read about it (New York Times 4/5/05 article) Scientific Advisory Panels Stacked, Scientists Warn American scientists are growing increasingly worried that the Bush administration is manipulating scientific advisory committees in order to further its political agenda. The Bush administration, many scientists fear, has distorted this process by putting committee members through political litmus tests, eliminating committees whose findings looked likely to disagree with its policies, and stacking committees with individuals who have a vested interest in steering conclusions to benefit effected industries. The role of these committees is not to tell the administration what they want to hear, Michaels argues, but to tell them what science has concluded about the issue under discussion. "This is a threat to the fundamental principles that we want to make decisions based on the best available science," Goldberg added. read about it Environment News Service article Data Quality Act read about it New York Times article The Future of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change read about it (April 2, 2002) read about it (April 19, 2002) New York Times article After a year of urging from energy lobbyists, the administration is seeking the ouster of an American scientist who heads a global warming panel. Environmental News Network article An environmental organization has accused the White House of caving to pressure from Exxon Mobil in trying to thwart an American scientist's bid to get re-elected as head of an international climate panel. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the Bush administration was working to oust the existing head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, atmospheric scientist Robert Watson, at the behest of energy lobbyists. Source: Associated Press Environment News Service article With the State Department's announcement Tuesday that the U.S. government will sponsor an Indian scientist as the new chair of an international climate change group, the Bush administration took another swipe at efforts to understand and combat global warming. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri would replace Dr. Robert Watson, a widely respected American scientist who has warned of the human causes of climate change for almost six years. Environment News Service article WATSON LOSES CHAIR OF CLIMATE PANEL --- GENEVA, Switzerland, April 19, 2002 (ENS) - Transatlantic divisions over climate change were reconfirmed today when Dr. Robert Watson, the outspoken chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), was ousted with American support but against European wishes.

The WebCounter logs indicate that you are the person to visit this page.