US Scientists blast both political parties

[kallend 2,180]

PELLSTON - Scientists, politicians, students and laymen gathered at the University of Michigan's Biological Station on Douglas Lake last week to discuss how to restore the integrity of the nation's scientific community in policy making, which conference leaders said has increasingly been compromised.

The scientists, among the nation's foremost experts in global warming, reproductive health issues, ocean drilling and other disciplines, said the misuse of science has been a problem for decades but has become particularly acute in the Bush administration.

The two-day forum, titled “The Douglas Lake Summit on Scientific Integrity,” was co-sponsored by the Biological Station and the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

UCS facilitator Michael Halpern said the summit, which drew more than 200 people during the sessions between Thursday and Friday, was the first such comprehensive forum to be held in Michigan.

Halpern said political interference in science had become routine, and cited as an example what he said was distortion, suppression and manipulation of global warming science and scientists.

He said some 40 percent of scientists in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries said in a UCS survey that they were afraid to speak frankly about issues and felt constrained in their roles as scientists.


And he noted that more than 9,000 scientists had signed a statement calling for an end to scientific manipulation and distortion and the restoration of scientific integrity in policy making. The group included 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 169 members of the national Academy of Sciences.

Despite the obvious potential for the issues to become highly politicized in an election year, the scientists agreed that the problem needs to be addressed on a bi-partisan basis.

Panelist Lana Pollack, a former Michigan state senator who is now director of the Michigan Environmental Council, said she believes each party is failing the country.

She described modern day Republican leaders as tending toward authoritarianism and Democrats too often as wimps.



“I'm tough on politicians of both parties,” she said.

Pollack said she did not believe that politicians should be denigrated as a class, but said she sensed that political capital was moving out of the political parties and was coming more from think tanks paid for by a few wealthy families that are mainly on the political right.

Pollack, who served from 1983 to 1994 in the state Senate as a Democrat from Washtenaw County, said pressures on the world of science come primarily from:

1) Commercial interest groups that have an interest in subverting science, such as the coal industry that has been active in trying to subvert the science of global warming;

2) The religious fundamentalists; and,

3) The authoritarianism of the far right.

She said the attacks from these groups on science are directed at the free exchanges of information in libraries and the media, particularly when the reports are inconsistent with what the groups want reported.

“Nothing is guaranteed. It's all threatened. It's an extraordinarily dangerous time in America, and must not be taken lightly,” she said, citing previous periods of similar threats, as during the McCarthy era.

Pollack appealed to people in the audience, especially the students, to consider running for political office at some point in their careers to represent the scientific community in policy making.

Retired ophthalmologist John Tanton of Petoskey noted that there are few scientists in Congress, while most legislators are attorneys.

Panelist Steven Bohlen, who had been the associate chief geologist for science of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), said the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) is another example of the intersection of science and policy.

Bohlen said the USGS had been chastised for allowing the ANWAR assessment to be conducted, and in advance of release of results, the Bush administration leaked news of them to the media. He said the USGS had been instructed to not initiate contact with Congressional staffers to offer briefings on ANWAR.

He said Democrats were as much a burden as the Republicans.

“Now there is almost no oversight by Congress on ANWAR. It has gone silent,” Bohlen said.

Susan Wood, who served as director of the FDA's Office of Women's Health for five years, resigned last August on principle as a result of the continued delay of approval of the emergency contraceptive, Plan B.

She said the Plan B contraceptive did not cause abortion, and she doesn't believe that contraception is controversial.

“We must insist that the FDA and all health agencies base decisions on science and medical evidence. We can't risk the credibility of FDA as ‘gold standard' for safety and effectiveness of drugs, medical devices and biologics,” she said.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Not only is an effort to keep politicians out of science a good goal - but we now need an effort to scientists out of partisan politics apparently

gotta hand it to the eggheads, they aren't subtle when trying to give a false impression of non-partisanship

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The group included 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 169 members of the national Academy of Sciences.

Homer, "I'm not hear to read a bunch of certificates on the wall. I want to see some CREDENTIALS."

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Not only is an effort to keep politicians out of science a good goal - but we now need an effort to scientists out of partisan politics apparently

gotta hand it to the eggheads, they aren't subtle when trying to give a false impression of non-partisanship

word.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[lawrocket 3]

What is strange to me is that these groups seem to be saying, "I am not being allowed to do my job as a scientist. The government regime, corporations, and religious zealots are prohibiting me from my pursuit of science."

This makes me wonder - "How?" It makes me wonder, "Why can't you be a scientist? Because corporations object? Because religious zealots say that their philosophy of intelligent design is better? Because the governments won't pay attention to you?"

The job of a scientist is not to forward policy. They can make suggestions. They can tug at the ears of policy makers. But they do not make policy. They supply the data, theories and - in many cases - the philosophies to policy makers.

Here's what the whole thing said:
"We need money. And the people who have paid us in the past did not like what we had to say. The corporations will not support our research anymore because we'd put them out of business. The government won't pay us, and don't use us to make the policies that we think it should. And the religious? Don't even get me started on those pea brains.

"So, in order to keep the money coming in, we need to bend out data and our conclusions. And we don't like bending our data. So, instead of us scientists agreeing to stick to our guns, we want to let it be known to everyone that these evil corporations, governments and bible thumpers are making us say things that we don't mean.

"People of the country and the world, UNITE! Tell those people that they should continue to pay us and only expect us to tell the truth, regardless of how bad it makes those evil capitalist dogs look.

"Oh, yeah. The Democrats are letting them make us sell-out. We have no power to not sell out. After all, money talks, and if the Democrats would stick to their guns, we could stick to ours."

It's amazing. They cited the example of Susan Wood, who stuck to her guns and resigned. Meanwhile, they seem to mention how horrible it is that they are not being allowed to stick to their guns.

As an aside, scientists should have input with regard to policy. They should be able to make suggestions about it. This has been done successfully in the past. It has also done with great harm in the past.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,180]

I did not read that way at all. I read it that they are fed up with having research distorted for political purposes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

What is strange to me is that these groups seem to be saying, "I am not being allowed to do my job as a scientist. The government regime, corporations, and religious zealots are prohibiting me from my pursuit of science."

This makes me wonder - "How?" It makes me wonder, "Why can't you be a scientist? Because corporations object? Because religious zealots say that their philosophy of intelligent design is better? Because the governments won't pay attention to you?"

The job of a scientist is not to forward policy. They can make suggestions. They can tug at the ears of policy makers. But they do not make policy. They supply the data, theories and - in many cases - the philosophies to policy makers.

Here's what the whole thing said:
"We need money. And the people who have paid us in the past did not like what we had to say. The corporations will not support our research anymore because we'd put them out of business. The government won't pay us, and don't use us to make the policies that we think it should. And the religious? Don't even get me started on those pea brains.

"So, in order to keep the money coming in, we need to bend out data and our conclusions. And we don't like bending our data. So, instead of us scientists agreeing to stick to our guns, we want to let it be known to everyone that these evil corporations, governments and bible thumpers are making us say things that we don't mean.

"People of the country and the world, UNITE! Tell those people that they should continue to pay us and only expect us to tell the truth, regardless of how bad it makes those evil capitalist dogs look.

"Oh, yeah. The Democrats are letting them make us sell-out. We have no power to not sell out. After all, money talks, and if the Democrats would stick to their guns, we could stick to ours."

It's amazing. They cited the example of Susan Wood, who stuck to her guns and resigned. Meanwhile, they seem to mention how horrible it is that they are not being allowed to stick to their guns.

As an aside, scientists should have input with regard to policy. They should be able to make suggestions about it. This has been done successfully in the past. It has also done with great harm in the past.

When something doen't make sense just follow the money.
Great post!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I did not read that way at all. I read it that they are fed up with having research distorted for political purposes.

And I fully believe what you posted here is happening more to those the disagree with the global warming crowd.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I did not read that way at all. I read it that they are fed up with having research distorted for political purposes.

From the article:

Quote

Scientists, politicians, students and laymen gathered at the University of Michigan's Biological Station on Douglas Lake last week to discuss how to restore the integrity of the nation's scientific community in policy making, which conference leaders said has increasingly been compromised. (emphasis added)

To me, that says that the integrity of the scientific community has been compromised, with regard to the its influence on policymaking.

Quote

the misuse of science has been a problem for decades but has become particularly acute in the Bush administration.

This tells me that science is being misused - HOW it is being misused is open to interpretation. Either: 1) results are being spun and/or corrupted by the politicians; or 2) scientists are corrupting their results via political pressure. I believe the forum is addressing the latter.

Quote

political interference in science had become routine, and cited as an example what he said was distortion, suppression and manipulation of global warming science and scientists.

Okay, so it argues both the former and the latter. "Distortion" is a political tactic for which the scientific community has no control. "Suppression and manipulation of science and scientists" IS, in fact, something entirely in the control of the scientific community. The scientific community can only blame itself for "suppression and manipulation." I believe the latter two are the most highly fleshed out in the remainder of the article.

Quote

some 40 percent of scientists in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries said in a UCS survey that they were afraid to speak frankly about issues and felt constrained in their roles as scientists.

Okay. This points to scientific community NOT sticking to their guns. An, "I'm afraid to tell them my results." Well, stick to your guns and SAY IT.

Quote

9,000 scientists had signed a statement calling for an end to scientific manipulation and distortion and the restoration of scientific integrity in policy making.

This goes to the second quote, above. Just wanting you to know I'm not glazing over it.

Quote

Despite the obvious potential for the issues to become highly politicized in an election year, the scientists agreed that the problem needs to be addressed on a bi-partisan basis.

Okay, a recognition of political issues with science.

Quote

She described modern day Republican leaders as tending toward authoritarianism and Democrats too often as wimps.

Authoritarian? That means, "The results will be what I tell you." To concede to that is to lack integrity. Wimps? It means the Dems aren't sticking up for the scientists.

Again, pointing more toward a problem with the scientists giving in. (You aren't in high school anymore getting bullied by the jocks, guys.)

Quote

she sensed that political capital was moving out of the political parties and was coming more from think tanks paid for by a few wealthy families that are mainly on the political right.

How this is relevant to any scientific ethics is unknown to me.

Quote

pressures on the world of science come primarily from:

1) Commercial interest groups that have an interest in subverting science, such as the coal industry that has been active in trying to subvert the science of global warming;

2) The religious fundamentalists; and,

3) The authoritarianism of the far right.

AH! Here's the REAL issue. Polluting corporations subvert science. How? Note that an explanation of how wasn't there. Of all people, scientists (well, she is a politician) should cite hypothesis and evidence. The mechanism of this can only be: 1) corp's spinning science results (which no scientific forum can control); 2) Corps funding science that counters other scientists; 3) Corps faking science to counter other scientists (which is not science, but political spin, which can't be countered); or 4) withdrawing funding (true subversion) from scientists who publish findings contrary to their interests.

Religious fundamentalists? Scientists obviously dispute philosophers. How can religious fundamentalists affect the integrity of the scientific community?

Authoritarian far right? Again, the only things they can do are: 1) not fund; 2) rely on contrary philosophy; 3) rely on contrary science; or 4) pressure the scientific community to skew results. So, the only thing the scientific community can change is No. 4.

Quote

attacks from these groups on science are directed at the free exchanges of information in libraries and the media, particularly when the reports are inconsistent with what the groups want reported.

Okay. So these groups are attacking the science. That has little to do with the integrity of the scientific community. How can anyone prevent attacks from philosophy on science?

Quote

consider running for political office at some point in their careers to represent the scientific community in policy making.

And here we go. To a previous point - let's make scientists politicians. Let's give them reigns on policy. As opposed to, "leave science to science, policy to the wonks," etc. They disagree with the policies. Therefore, mount an attack on the policymakers as scorning their science.

This isn't about integrity. This is about public or global policy. In other words, a policy forum masquerading as a scientific ethics discussion.

Quote

the USGS had been chastised for allowing the ANWAR assessment to be conducted, and in advance of release of results, the Bush administration leaked news of them to the media. He said the USGS had been instructed to not initiate contact with Congressional staffers to offer briefings on ANWAR.

Now, this sounds pretty bad. But look at what it said: 1) GWB leaked news of results prior to their official release (not stating the leaks were false, but just that they were leaked); and 2) That the USGS should not initiate contact with Congress to offer briefings (no, not "you can't talk to Congress" but instead, "if Congress asks, do it. If not, don't say "hey, Congress, I've got something to tell you")

Quote

“Now there is almost no oversight by Congress on ANWAR. It has gone silent,”

This is POLICY, not SCIENCE. I'll put it this way, earlier the article mentioned a problem with "political interference" being "routine." This point says, "Congress is not overseeing this." Oversight equals interference. THESE scientists just want different people interfering. As a young officer, I interfered with battalion REMFs so my troops didn't have to. I drew fire when my CO didn't. I disliked battalion interference. I would have appreciated my CO interfering. Both are interference. Mine was interference. I simply had the balls and the integrity to do it.

Quote

Susan Wood, who served as director of the FDA's Office of Women's Health for five years, resigned last August on principle as a result of the continued delay of approval of the emergency contraceptive, Plan B.

An example of someone with integrity and moral courage. Offered as an example of, "Don't agree with what's going on? Feel constrained from doign your job? Don't participate and go where you are not contrained." Here's what scientists SHOULD do. Stand by your guns either by being the possibly sole voice of truth, or stand by your guns by refusing to participate in a corrupt system.

Quote

“We must insist that the FDA and all health agencies base decisions on science and medical evidence. We can't risk the credibility of FDA as ‘gold standard' for safety and effectiveness of drugs, medical devices and biologics,” she said.

The FDA is a policy arm, created by politicians, for politicians. While based in science, it is also based on politics.

It so happens that I agree with what these people are saying. I agree that as policy, it should be how things go. I agree that science should be viewed more importantly than philosophy in most policy decisions.

However, that final quote is not a scientific comment. It is a philosophical, ergo political, comment. This means that science is secondary to philosophy.

Back to what I stated above, this is about policy-wonking masquerading as scientific discussion. It is a political stance that science should have a greater role in policymaking, not that science lacks integrity.

This is not about scientific method. It is about sociological and political concept. Scientific ethics are limited to science. What is done with science? That is political, which scientists can do nothing about unless they stop being scientists and become politicians.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

In other words, a policy forum masquerading as a scientific ethics discussion.

To distill your entire discussion. Totally agree. This is clearly a complaint that the subgroup of "Scientists with political agendas" are upset that their findings aren't used to leverage their more subjective polical desires.

But at least they have a lot of awards.

(that you agree with the scientists' desire to be stronger policy makers. I disagree - scientists (typ) are arrogant and also make huge mistakes about 50% of the time and can't admit it and therefore can't correct the problems they cause/misrepresent. Those that aren't, are inable to make decisions at all for fear of being wrong)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

(that you agree with the scientists' desire to be stronger policy makers. I disagree - scientists (typ) are arrogant and also make huge mistakes about 50% of the time and can't admit it and therefore can't correct the problems they cause/misrepresent. Those that aren't, are inable to make decisions at all for fear of being wrong)

As opposed to politicians, who are more arrogant and make bigger mistakes 90 percent of the time and cannot and will not admit it and therefore not only refuse to correct the problems they cause or misrepresent, but will argue that the policy was simply provided enough money or resources so they double the effort and money towards failure?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Who needs scientists when you have God talking to your Supreme Leader. He will tell you what is right, wrong and just. Don't need no fancy edumacation or research for any of that.....just listen to the voices in your head.......

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

(that you agree with the scientists' desire to be stronger policy makers. I disagree - scientists (typ) are arrogant and also make huge mistakes about 50% of the time and can't admit it and therefore can't correct the problems they cause/misrepresent. Those that aren't, are inable to make decisions at all for fear of being wrong)

As opposed to politicians, who are more arrogant and make bigger mistakes 90 percent of the time and cannot and will not admit it and therefore not only refuse to correct the problems they cause or misrepresent, but will argue that the policy was simply provided enough money or resources so they double the effort and money towards failure?

good point - my only response is the one about the devil you know vs the one masquerading (albeit rather sloppily) as altruistic

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[EricTheRed 0]

Must have been the 'shrooms from his younger days...

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_1682610.htm

illegible usually