The report Politics and Science in the Bush Administration (.pdf) finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. Beneficiaries include important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups. Example: Lead Poisoning In the summer of 2002, CDC’s Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention was preparing to confront the controversial issue of whether to expand the diagnosis of lead poisoning to include children with lower levels of blood lead. For more than a decade, the committee had advised intervention if levels measured 10 micrograms per deciliter or greater. While the lead industry has opposed lowering the standard, recent research has suggested that the cognitive development of children may be impaired at levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or lower. As the committee prepared to consider changing the standard, HHS Secretary Thompson removed or rejected several qualified scientists and replaced them with lead industry consultants. More politics and science
Politics has been transmogrifying legitimate science into quasi-truth since the dawn of time to suit specific agendas. On the up side, the faux-science generally lasts only as long as it's fashionable.
Children don't need all those brain cells any more anyway. At least not if they go to government-run schools.
Here's an interesting quote from the report about stem cells: It has been apparent for some time that the Bush's problem with stem cell research has been grounded in fundamental religous thought. It's also apparent that Bush uses the religous referances as a means to gain popularity. His interest is in what he believes the public perceives as just and moral. Unfortunately the public is often ignorant about such matters as stem cell research. Partially because of media failures to adequately report the research, partially to the failure of researchers to "sell" their ideas (in my opinion at least) adequately. Most people hear the words "embryonic stem cell" and think of a small child in the womb.... not a blastocyst that may or may not become a fetus. The Oval office should be above such ignorance. Howard Dean might not be the next best choice (or he may... time will tell), but he certainly is less ignorant to such things being a physician.
The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. --Richard Feynman
Hmmm. And who'se going to pay for this disinterested research and theorising. Oh yes, government and industry. For some years the top US universities implemented a mutually agreed policy of getting rid of anybody who disagreed fundamentally with Einstein. Why? To allow them to present a united front to the grant giving bodies. Many good scientists suffered. (Can find the reference if you insist). The idea that science is pursued disinterestedly is ridiculous. It has not been free of intellectually corrupting agendas since it became professionalised and the paymasters and professional bodies took charge. Either that's obvious to everyone or I'm about to get some serious flak.
I'm pretty sure most of us will agree with you. I do. That's arguably the biggest problem with all forms of science nowadays. Fortunately, faux-science with a cloaked agenda as an impetus lasts only as long as it's fashionable. What's this stuff about Einstein? I'm interested.
I'm pretty sure that I got it from Caroline Thompson at http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/ However I've just had a look and cannot immediately see it there. I'll get back to you. (Thompson's site is worth a visit anyway).
No - I think that it was here that I found it - http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_5.html#SEC5
