PDA

View Full Version : Bush vs. Science


Ikohn4ever
07-09-2004, 12:17 PM
I have often seen Republicans post articles anytime something negative about Dems appear in the news, well I saw this and it boils my biscuits.
This is an article on cnn.com about how the Moral tidal wave of Bush has smothered the science community.

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Bush administration is still packing scientific advisory panels with ideologues and is imposing strict controls on researchers who want to share ideas with colleagues in other countries, a group of scientists charged on Thursday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said in a report that the administration's policies could take years to undo and in the meantime the best and the brightest would be frightened away from jobs in the National Institutes of Health and other government institutions.

The union, chaired by Dr. Kurt Gottfried, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Cornell University, said more than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, had joined the call for "restoration of scientific integrity in federal policymaking."

"I don't think one should simply assume that the problem ... will go away if there is a new administration in office," Gottfried told reporters in a telephone briefing.

"What is happening under this administration is a cultural change. We have to address this cultural change and fix it."

Gottfried's group previously leveled similar charges against the Bush administration in February.

Two recently appointed members to the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research, Dr. Richard Myers of Stanford University in California and Dr. George Weinstock of Baylor College of Medicine in Texas, said they had been asked inappropriate questions when they were nominated.

Weinstock said a staffer at the Health and Human Services Department called to ask "leading political questions."

"There is no doubt in my mind that these questions represented a political litmus test," he said in a statement.

Myers said he received a similar call in which he was asked about his opinion of embryonic stem cell research, which the White House opposes.

"Then the staffer asked questions that really shocked me," Myers is quoted as saying in the report. "She wanted to know what I thought about President Bush: Did I like him, what did I think of the job he was doing."

Dr. Gerald Keusch, former Associate Director for International Research at NIH, said NIH staffers in Bethesda, Maryland, were being forced to put in travel requests to visit the offices of the Pan American Health Organization "just a Metro trip away" in downtown Washington, D.C.

"You are now required to submit a travel request six weeks ahead of time," said Keusch, who resigned last year.

"These are increasing bits of evidence of attempts at control over the way the business of science, the open communication between scientists, is being conducted."

White House science adviser Dr. John Marburger and HHS spokesman Bill Pierce have denied the administration is distorting science. Pierce says HHS is seeking a diversity of opinions.

But Robert Paine, an ecologist at University of Washington who chaired an advisory panel on endangered salmon and trout, said his team was warned by the government to remove facts that undermined policy.

"We were told to strip out specific scientific recommendations or see our report end up in a drawer," Paine said.

The report includes accusations of administration interference on strip mining, drug approvals and protection of endangered species." (
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/09/bush.science.reut/index.html

It just annoys me greatly how Bush lets his own alleged personal beliefs get in the way of scientifc progress. It keeps us from moving foward when we have a passive aggressive witch hunt that keeps some of the best people for the job away from it. Plus it allows "policy makers" aka big businesses to get away with all sorts of ecological harm

Dead of Knight
07-09-2004, 12:20 PM
Big Brother is watching you!

Fuck Bush.

CaseyRyback
07-09-2004, 12:23 PM
what made me laugh real hard yesterday on the bottom of the screen on CNN it said "Bush wants Bin Laden caught by Nov. 2"

Dead of Knight
07-09-2004, 12:26 PM
what made me laugh real hard yesterday on the bottom of the screen on CNN it said "Bush wants Bin Laden caught by Nov. 2"

At least he's telling the truth for once. :lol:

Ikohn4ever
07-09-2004, 12:28 PM
he is goin to have a speech where he tells that he saved the election for the people, with "vote for bush" subliminal messaging goin on in the background

suprsaiyanMAX
07-09-2004, 12:30 PM
How do you he doesn't already do it? Or any presidential canidate for that matter.

darkmere
07-09-2004, 12:34 PM
i think it's funny that they think the elections are gonna be the target for the 'next terror attacks'. it sounds like as excuse to use government funding for bush to take the office another 4 years. this admin has no clue what the real issues should be...patriot act anyone? and what ever happened to separation of church and state...ask the rest of the world...we are a church state

Xevious
07-09-2004, 12:38 PM
Stem Cell Research is the main sticking point. Bush is holding back funds for Stem Cell Research and now the Koreans have a jump on us when it comes to that.

This is going to hurt us in the long run especially if Bush gets relected again.

Ikohn4ever
07-09-2004, 12:42 PM
its like reagan and AIDS, he did not even mention till the end of his second term. This allowed for many year of less research and public awareness then there should have been. Things might be a lot different now if there would have been a better attempt to study AIDS. With stem cells we are preventing ourselves from helping so many people its redonkulous

Xevious
07-10-2004, 10:02 AM
This is just another case of religion versus science. The history books is filled with stories like this.

bmulligan
07-10-2004, 10:22 AM
Keep in mind that some of these "concerned scientists" have political agendas of their own. Just because one is a scientist does not preclude or automatically mean you are an objective observer with no affiliations or policical leanings. Many professors of 'science' are more concerned with their sources of funding to perpetuate thier own valididy in the scientific community rather than be devoted to science, per se. They are politicians just like the elected ones.

Dragonlordfrodo
07-10-2004, 10:31 AM
Bush needs to go. Vote for Kerry!

BTW Go to howardstern.com for more anti bush articles.

The-Bavis
07-10-2004, 10:38 AM
its like reagan and AIDS, he did not even mention till the end of his second term. This allowed for many year of less research and public awareness then there should have been. Things might be a lot different now if there would have been a better attempt to study AIDS. With stem cells we are preventing ourselves from helping so many people its redonkulous

We have therapies derived from stem cell research that was performed on adult stem cells. The embryonic stem cell research that people are all keyed up about is currently unproven theories which have never benefited anyone in experimental trials. Bush is only opposed to the embryonic stem cell research b/c people use it to justify abortion.

This article does make it seem like they asked some goofy questions... Bush and co. seem to really like squashing information and controlling subordinates... I don't like it.

coolz481
07-10-2004, 10:46 AM
Yes, the good old Patriot Act...voted for by Kerry, voted for by Edwards, in fact, voted for by nearly every member of Congress. The leading critics of the legislation are better described as libertarian Republicans rather than Democrats. These critics can't even get the necessary votes together to make minor changes to the legislation. Every move you make on the internet, over email, etc. is already subject to subpoena. Anonymity is a joke...how many times per year are you required to list your social security number in order to get a loan, get a job, get a credit card...you see where I'm going with this.

Political litmus tests for scientists...who cares? It's not unconstitutional to do so and who says 'concerned' scientists are entitled to my federal tax dollars anyway? If the research holds out that much promise, there will be plenty of venture capitalists and yes, 'big businesses' to fund it.

As for litmus tests in general, who's kidding whom when it comes to judges, particularly Supreme Court justices. Somehow, those right-wing Republicans managed to nominate Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter over the past 20 years, all of whom affirmed a Constitutional right to abortion in the Casey decision (1992) (I checked and rechecked the document and darned if I couldn't find it though). Yet, miraculously, all of Clinton's nominees supported his views on the more controversial social and political issues of the day. Better research on candidates? Maybe, maybe not.

Quackzilla
07-11-2004, 01:30 AM
Litmus is used for testing PH levels.

I hope Gearge W. Bush gets alzheimers or parkinsons disease. Then ask him about stem cells.