Science and the Bush Administration

[SkinWalker]

Okay... enough talk of religion. Let's be critical of the Bush Admin again!

 

I recently came across this pdf file: Politics and Science in the Bush Administration (.pdf)

 

You'll need Adobe Acrobat Viewer to read it, but who doesn't have that these days?

 

The report concludes with this quote:

Federal agencies with global reputations for scientific excellence depend upon the objective input of leading scientists and the impartial analysis of scientific evidence to develop effective policies. The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly suppressed, distorted, or obstructed science to suit political and ideological goals. These actions go far beyond the traditional influence that Presidents are permitted to wield at federal agencies and compromise the integrity of scientific policymaking.

 

I'm still reading through it... it's 40 pages long and so far an interesting read if you've even a passing interest in science and/or politics.

 

I'm interested in what the feelings and thoughts are of others about this topic. Does the Bush Admin really focus appropriately on the sciences, or does it "suppress, distort, and obstruct" it as it feels?

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

I'm interested in what the feelings and thoughts are of others about this topic. Does the Bush Admin really focus appropriately on the sciences, or does it "suppress, distort, and obstruct" it as it feels?

 

If so it will be the equivalent of the Church distorting the writings of the Bible to serve its own contemporary ends as is abundantly evident it did, specifically through the Middle Ages. Oh dang, there I went ahead and got Christianity mentioned, but in all honesty the comparison holds weight in that it will be for rational minds what the biblical distortion is to Christians: The coming about of a misleading and potentially dangerous path.

 

That being said, science unlike Christianity has the means to rectify falsehoods stemming from distortion (though Christianity can too if the original texts are not lost), so while it will not prove ultimately "fatal" it can delay scientific progress. This in turn can have seriously critical consequences, the specifics of which I dare not guess about, so if it is indeed true the public must be made aware. Politics must not be allowed to make a servant of science itself, only the result, and that with greatest of care, e.g. the science of nuclear fission and one of the results, the nuclear bomb.

[SkinWalker]

It covers over twenty scientific issues affected by the undermining of science, including:

 

• Abstinence education, where performance measures were changed to make unproven "abstinence-only" programs appear effective;

 

• Condom use, where information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC’s web site

 

• Global warming, where reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed;

 

• Missile defense, where Defense Department officials presented misleading information on whether a functional system could be quickly deployed; and

 

• Wetlands policy, where comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were withheld.

 

Clearly George W. Bush intends that his opinions of science and science policy should be those of the people as well. Regardless of the consequences. Regardless of whether his views are skewed by fundamentalist religion and not the impartiality of science.

[Kurgan]

Hmm, a career politician who's views are heavily influenced by those who can get him the most financial support and re-election votes.

 

Can't say I'm surprised...