This article is very, very excellent... but bit long for short-span attention people to read though. Warning, it is VERY thought-provoking article and it require the high level of critical thinking skill. Here it is:
There’s a war going on—and not just the one in Iraq. This conflict may not get as much media play, but it could have just as great an impact on our safety, national prestige, and long-term economic health. It is a war over the integrity of science itself, and the casualties are everywhere: career scientists and enforcement officials are resigning en masse from government agencies, citing an inability to do their jobs due to what they see as the ruthless politicization of science by the Bush administration. Bruce Boler, Marianne Horinko, Rich Biondi, J. P. Suarez and Eric Schaeffer are among those who have resigned from the EPA alone. In a letter to The New York Times, former EPA administrator Russell Train, who worked for both Nixon and Ford, wrote, “I can state categorically that there never was such White House intrusion into the business of the EPA during my tenure.” 1 Government meddling has reached such a level that European scientists are voicing concerns that Bush may not merely be undermining U.S. dominance in sciences, but global research as well. 2
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently published the results of an investigation into the administration’s misuse of science called “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking,” with a letter signed by over 60 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel Laureates. 3 President Bush’s science adviser Dr. John Marburger III’s response was hardly reassuring. 4 Part of Marburger’s defense was to use the common tactic to delay action by calling for “more research,” while in other cases he used verbal sleight of hand to avoid addressing the actual charge. For instance, when the National Cancer Institute’s web site was altered to suggest there was a link between abortion and breast cancer Marburger described the change as only a routine update. What actually troubled the UCS was that the findings of established science had been removed in favor of language that promoted the lonely crusade of Dr. Joel Brind.
For those unfamiliar with Dr. Brind, he discovered the supposed Abortion Breast Cancer link (or ABC as he calls it) after “making contact” with a local right-to-life group shortly after becoming a born-again Christian. “With a new belief in a meaningful universe,” he explains, “I felt compelled to use science for its noblest, life-saving purpose.” 5 Despite the fact that Brind is completely at odds with his peers, the web site was updated with the following text:
To prove that he took the issue of global warming seriously, Marburger shamelessly cited a study that President Bush had commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences. The administration had asked the NAS to find “weaknesses” in climate science studies to justify their efforts to derail an international global warming treaty. 8 When the commissioned report instead confirmed human-induced climate change and mentioned fossil fuels as a major culprit the EPA decided to replace the findings in its Report on the Environment with a discredited study funded by the American Petroleum Institute. 9
Marburger also pesented an argument that was made by Spinsanity, a self-described government watchdog website, which pointed out that just because a “frustrated scientist” had leaked an EPA report on children’s health to The Wall Street Journal, that did not prove there was a sinister intent to surpress it because bureaucratic delays in releasing information are common. 10
But the fact that so many scientists and government workers have risked their jobs by leaking information to the media makes this explaination weaker than it might be. As an editorial in The New York Times concluded, Marburger’s response is “little more than an attempt to put a positive spin on some flagrant examples of tailoring science to fit politics.” 11
Then there are those examples the UCS does not mention: the Corn Refiners Association and Sugar Association successfully lobbied Bush to pressure the World Health Organization to de-emphasize the importance of cutting sweets and eating fruits and vegetables in their anti-obesity guidelines. 12 Two scientists were ejected from a bioethics council due to what they believed to be their views favoring embryo research. 13 Data on hydraulic fracturing were altered so benzene levels met government standards after “feedback” from an industry source. 14 Another study (sponsored by Florida developers) claiming wetlands cause pollution, was used by the EPA to justify replacing protected marshes with golf courses to improve “water quality.” 15
Nothing is so trivial that it escapes top administration advisor Karl Rove’s insistence on staying “on message”—from forbidding NASA scientists to speak to the press about the global warming disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow, 16 to letting National Park Service gift shops sell books with the “alternative view” that the Grand Canyon was formed in seven days. 17
One need look no further than the USDA to see how compromised the research and enforcement environment has become. Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman was a former food industry lawyer and lobbyist and her staff includes representatives of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and other industry groups. So it should be no surprise that shortly after a dairy cow from Canada tested positive for mad cow disease a senior scientist came forward alleging agency pressure to let Canadian beef into the U.S. before a study concluded it was safe. 18 Nor should it shock us that whistleblowers accused an Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service supervisor of insisting a cow exhibiting symptoms of the disease be sent to a rendering plant before a technician could perform the tests mandated by agency guidelines. 19 But even the most cynical among us might be baffled by the almost cultish devotion to industry pandering exhibited when the USDA refused to give Creekstone Farms Premium Beef the kits it requested to voluntarily test its cattle so it could export to Japan because it might “create the impression that untested beef was not safe.” Creekstone may very well go bankrupt as a result. 20
Such reluctance only makes sense if the USDA fears that positive results are possible. Still, one hesitates to suggest the USDA is trying to sell as much tainted beef as possible before people start exhibiting symptoms. One hesitates slightly less so after learning that EPA staffers were also prevented from performing routine analysis of the economic and health consequences of proposed regulations governing mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. After all, it’s a lot easier to suppress unfavorable scientific findings if there’s nothing to suppress. But surely even they realize preventing an analysis of the consequences of our actions will not prevent those consequences from occurring. That’s the rub. Science doesn’t appear to factor into their reasoning at all. The tests might come up negative. They might come up positive. The meat is considered safe either way.
Debates over Bush’s character usually devolve into familiar partisan arguments citing either his resoluteness in the face of widespread negative reaction as proof of his conviction, or the chasm between rhetoric and reality as evidence of Bush’s disingenuous denial. Both could be true enough to have created an atmosphere that encourages government officials to practice outright deception to attain administration goals. To get an exemption from the Endangered Species Act the Pentagon simply changed a quote from an Army study saying government regulations “enhanced” training realism at Fort Stewart to “impaired.” 21 A Park Service brochure used a photo—supposedly taken in 1909—to prove that forests in the Sierra Nevadas were thinner before the implementation of “preventative thinning.” The picture was actually a photo taken of a recently logged forest in Montana.
Such distortions seem always to be in the service of a crusade of true belief. Unquestionably Bush is a man of conviction. The problem is that Bush does not seem to arrive at these convictions through faulty human pursuits like science. He seems to suppose his knowledge comes from a higher source.
More... in next post due to over 10,000 characters.
There’s a war going on—and not just the one in Iraq. This conflict may not get as much media play, but it could have just as great an impact on our safety, national prestige, and long-term economic health. It is a war over the integrity of science itself, and the casualties are everywhere: career scientists and enforcement officials are resigning en masse from government agencies, citing an inability to do their jobs due to what they see as the ruthless politicization of science by the Bush administration. Bruce Boler, Marianne Horinko, Rich Biondi, J. P. Suarez and Eric Schaeffer are among those who have resigned from the EPA alone. In a letter to The New York Times, former EPA administrator Russell Train, who worked for both Nixon and Ford, wrote, “I can state categorically that there never was such White House intrusion into the business of the EPA during my tenure.” 1 Government meddling has reached such a level that European scientists are voicing concerns that Bush may not merely be undermining U.S. dominance in sciences, but global research as well. 2
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently published the results of an investigation into the administration’s misuse of science called “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking,” with a letter signed by over 60 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel Laureates. 3 President Bush’s science adviser Dr. John Marburger III’s response was hardly reassuring. 4 Part of Marburger’s defense was to use the common tactic to delay action by calling for “more research,” while in other cases he used verbal sleight of hand to avoid addressing the actual charge. For instance, when the National Cancer Institute’s web site was altered to suggest there was a link between abortion and breast cancer Marburger described the change as only a routine update. What actually troubled the UCS was that the findings of established science had been removed in favor of language that promoted the lonely crusade of Dr. Joel Brind.
For those unfamiliar with Dr. Brind, he discovered the supposed Abortion Breast Cancer link (or ABC as he calls it) after “making contact” with a local right-to-life group shortly after becoming a born-again Christian. “With a new belief in a meaningful universe,” he explains, “I felt compelled to use science for its noblest, life-saving purpose.” 5 Despite the fact that Brind is completely at odds with his peers, the web site was updated with the following text:
After an outcry by members of Congress, the National Cancer Institute convened a three-day conference where experts reviewed the evidence, again concluding “nduced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,” ranking the science as “well-established.” 7
To prove that he took the issue of global warming seriously, Marburger shamelessly cited a study that President Bush had commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences. The administration had asked the NAS to find “weaknesses” in climate science studies to justify their efforts to derail an international global warming treaty. 8 When the commissioned report instead confirmed human-induced climate change and mentioned fossil fuels as a major culprit the EPA decided to replace the findings in its Report on the Environment with a discredited study funded by the American Petroleum Institute. 9
Marburger also pesented an argument that was made by Spinsanity, a self-described government watchdog website, which pointed out that just because a “frustrated scientist” had leaked an EPA report on children’s health to The Wall Street Journal, that did not prove there was a sinister intent to surpress it because bureaucratic delays in releasing information are common. 10
But the fact that so many scientists and government workers have risked their jobs by leaking information to the media makes this explaination weaker than it might be. As an editorial in The New York Times concluded, Marburger’s response is “little more than an attempt to put a positive spin on some flagrant examples of tailoring science to fit politics.” 11
Then there are those examples the UCS does not mention: the Corn Refiners Association and Sugar Association successfully lobbied Bush to pressure the World Health Organization to de-emphasize the importance of cutting sweets and eating fruits and vegetables in their anti-obesity guidelines. 12 Two scientists were ejected from a bioethics council due to what they believed to be their views favoring embryo research. 13 Data on hydraulic fracturing were altered so benzene levels met government standards after “feedback” from an industry source. 14 Another study (sponsored by Florida developers) claiming wetlands cause pollution, was used by the EPA to justify replacing protected marshes with golf courses to improve “water quality.” 15
Nothing is so trivial that it escapes top administration advisor Karl Rove’s insistence on staying “on message”—from forbidding NASA scientists to speak to the press about the global warming disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow, 16 to letting National Park Service gift shops sell books with the “alternative view” that the Grand Canyon was formed in seven days. 17
One need look no further than the USDA to see how compromised the research and enforcement environment has become. Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman was a former food industry lawyer and lobbyist and her staff includes representatives of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and other industry groups. So it should be no surprise that shortly after a dairy cow from Canada tested positive for mad cow disease a senior scientist came forward alleging agency pressure to let Canadian beef into the U.S. before a study concluded it was safe. 18 Nor should it shock us that whistleblowers accused an Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service supervisor of insisting a cow exhibiting symptoms of the disease be sent to a rendering plant before a technician could perform the tests mandated by agency guidelines. 19 But even the most cynical among us might be baffled by the almost cultish devotion to industry pandering exhibited when the USDA refused to give Creekstone Farms Premium Beef the kits it requested to voluntarily test its cattle so it could export to Japan because it might “create the impression that untested beef was not safe.” Creekstone may very well go bankrupt as a result. 20
Such reluctance only makes sense if the USDA fears that positive results are possible. Still, one hesitates to suggest the USDA is trying to sell as much tainted beef as possible before people start exhibiting symptoms. One hesitates slightly less so after learning that EPA staffers were also prevented from performing routine analysis of the economic and health consequences of proposed regulations governing mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. After all, it’s a lot easier to suppress unfavorable scientific findings if there’s nothing to suppress. But surely even they realize preventing an analysis of the consequences of our actions will not prevent those consequences from occurring. That’s the rub. Science doesn’t appear to factor into their reasoning at all. The tests might come up negative. They might come up positive. The meat is considered safe either way.
Debates over Bush’s character usually devolve into familiar partisan arguments citing either his resoluteness in the face of widespread negative reaction as proof of his conviction, or the chasm between rhetoric and reality as evidence of Bush’s disingenuous denial. Both could be true enough to have created an atmosphere that encourages government officials to practice outright deception to attain administration goals. To get an exemption from the Endangered Species Act the Pentagon simply changed a quote from an Army study saying government regulations “enhanced” training realism at Fort Stewart to “impaired.” 21 A Park Service brochure used a photo—supposedly taken in 1909—to prove that forests in the Sierra Nevadas were thinner before the implementation of “preventative thinning.” The picture was actually a photo taken of a recently logged forest in Montana.
Such distortions seem always to be in the service of a crusade of true belief. Unquestionably Bush is a man of conviction. The problem is that Bush does not seem to arrive at these convictions through faulty human pursuits like science. He seems to suppose his knowledge comes from a higher source.
More... in next post due to over 10,000 characters.
Last edited:
