Now to really **** you off

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07...h_bad_science/

Essentially, this article lays out the current US administrations agenda
on using science, i.e. ignore the scientists.
--
Frank Reid
Reverse Email to reply

In article , Frank Reid
wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07...h_bad_science/

I don't believe left wing wacko "scientist" any more than I believe
right wing wacko "scientist". A lobbiest group is a lobbiest group

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112661,00.html


Allen

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:30:18 -0400, Allen Epps
wrote:

In article , Frank Reid
wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07...h_bad_science/

I don't believe left wing wacko "scientist" any more than I believe
right wing wacko "scientist". A lobbiest group is a lobbiest group

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112661,00.html

How do you argue with someone who uses the banning of DDT *against* someone?

/daytripper (Conceded: "Nitwits For Bush" are showing early strength...)

Allen,
I would have expected better than a Fox News blurb....the truth is, the Bush
admin has systematically eliminated scientists, with no regard to anything
other than the likelyhood of negative, scientifically based conclusions, from a
host of advisory committees. NO administration has ever done so before, NONE!!
Tom

(Tom Littleton) wrote in
:

Allen,
I would have expected better than a Fox News blurb....the truth is,
the Bush
admin has systematically eliminated scientists, with no regard to
anything other than the likelyhood of negative, scientifically based
conclusions, from a host of advisory committees. NO administration has
ever done so before, NONE!!
Tom


Hmm while I'm certain that these events may seem this way to you, the
claim that science is hostage to political power has been made many times
in my lifetime, and before, by differing people in service of varying
agendas. A certain astronomer from the middle ages may be the most famous
example of this sort of thing.

That Bush is a political whore goes without saying. Please list for me
the politicans who do not fall within that category? Off the top of my
head I cannot, for the life of me, think of a single one.

Flyfish

Flyfish adds:

Hmm while I'm certain that these events may seem this way to you, the
claim that science is hostage to political power has been made many times
in my lifetime

I am talking about the practice of American Presidents with relation to
standing Scientific Advisory committees. It is a relatively recent practice(the
committees), not becoming a key part of governance until the 60's or so. Still,
the principle is basic, gather scientists to debate the scientific merits of
ongoing policies related to their field of expertise. The pols can take or
leave the advice, nothing is or should be binding. Still, the practice of
replacing accredited scientists with businessmen and still more politicians
would seem to defeat the knowledge-gathering aspect of having the committees in
the first place.
Not surprising when the leader of the Free World chooses not to read
newspapers.
Still, alarming and dangerous practice.
Tom

(Tom Littleton) wrote in
:

Flyfish adds:

Hmm while I'm certain that these events may seem this way to you, the
claim that science is hostage to political power has been made many
times in my lifetime

I am talking about the practice of American Presidents with relation
to standing Scientific Advisory committees. It is a relatively recent
practice(the committees), not becoming a key part of governance until
the 60's or so. Still, the principle is basic, gather scientists to
debate the scientific merits of ongoing policies related to their
field of expertise. The pols can take or leave the advice, nothing is
or should be binding. Still, the practice of replacing accredited
scientists with businessmen and still more politicians would seem to
defeat the knowledge-gathering aspect of having the committees in the
first place. Not surprising when the leader of the Free World chooses
not to read newspapers.
Still, alarming and dangerous practice.
Tom


Tom this make come as a huge surprise to you but I knew exactly what you
were talking about and while you may think this is a unique event, it is
not, and the same complaints have been levelled before against various
Presidential administrations. One could easily find such complaints made
against Reagan, and if you were to dig deep enough you'd find at least
one, dare I say it, scientist arguing that *gasp* Clinton was ignoring
valid science related to certain trendy theories related to climate (Fred
Singer).....

There is nothing new in rock and roll, or politics....

Flyfish

Flyfish wrote in
:

(Tom Littleton) wrote in
:

Allen,
I would have expected better than a Fox News blurb....the truth is,
the Bush
admin has systematically eliminated scientists, with no regard to
anything other than the likelyhood of negative, scientifically based
conclusions, from a host of advisory committees. NO administration
has ever done so before, NONE!!
Tom


Hmm while I'm certain that these events may seem this way to you, the
claim that science is hostage to political power has been made many
times in my lifetime, and before, by differing people in service of
varying agendas. A certain astronomer from the middle ages may be the
most famous example of this sort of thing.

That Bush is a political whore goes without saying. Please list for me
the politicans who do not fall within that category? Off the top of my
head I cannot, for the life of me, think of a single one.

Flyfish

Actually, science does pretty well under conservative governments that are
willing to spend into deficit, if Reagan can be used as an example, but
Bush isn't doing very good things for science at all.

Scott

Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

Flyfish wrote in
:

(Tom Littleton) wrote in
:

Allen,
I would have expected better than a Fox News blurb....the truth
is, the Bush
admin has systematically eliminated scientists, with no regard to
anything other than the likelyhood of negative, scientifically based
conclusions, from a host of advisory committees. NO administration
has ever done so before, NONE!!
Tom


Hmm while I'm certain that these events may seem this way to you, the
claim that science is hostage to political power has been made many
times in my lifetime, and before, by differing people in service of
varying agendas. A certain astronomer from the middle ages may be the
most famous example of this sort of thing.

That Bush is a political whore goes without saying. Please list for
me the politicans who do not fall within that category? Off the top
of my head I cannot, for the life of me, think of a single one.

Flyfish

Actually, science does pretty well under conservative governments that
are willing to spend into deficit, if Reagan can be used as an
example, but Bush isn't doing very good things for science at all.

Scott


I would argue that hard sciences like physics did well under Reagan, less
popular sciences such as environmental sciences fared poorly.

Flyfish

On 12 Jul 2004 21:56:39 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

Allen,
I would have expected better than a Fox News blurb....the truth is, the Bush
admin has systematically eliminated scientists, with no regard to anything
other than the likelyhood of negative, scientifically based conclusions, from a
host of advisory committees. NO administration has ever done so before, NONE!!
Tom

These two articles sure don't say much beside typical left- or
right-wing shouting. The first has a acting director of an FDA
department (an MD, I noted, and apparently, a pre-Bush FDAer) as being
"a member of the Bush administration." The only thing I saw of some
note was in the Fox story where it talked about how many such
bureaucrat/scientists have gone and continue to go down their own paths,
regardless of who's President.

I don't think the good doctor is exactly a key member of Bush's
administration, and moreover, all he did is disallow a prescription drug
from being made an OTC drug. While I can see the _possibility_ that
personal "moral" issues could be at work with the doctor, I saw nothing
in the UK article even hinting at that. A _quick_ google search
indicated that he made the ruling because there was essentially no way
to conduct tests with it on young girls (under 16), some suggested it
might interfere with their development, and so, he erred on the side of
caution, which enraged some liberal scientists, many who are,
apparently, women who claim it interfered with their reproductive
rights.

Right or wrong, I don't see anything making this a Presidential-level
political issue, and certainly nothing directly to do with what one
would normally call "the Bush administration." IOW, even if Ross Perot
enters the race and wins by a write-in movement, Dr. Galson will be at
the FDA come January, 2005.

TC,
R