Political Interference in the Scientific Process

[Frinkenstein]

Interesting article:


[ QUOTE ]
Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.

The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Full Article

Man, things like government suppression and misrepresentation of science really pisses me off!

[canis582]

Its easier if you think about it this way: The US government has become a subsidiary of the nation's corporations.

[natedogg]

There's only one solution you know.

Funding science with government money is by definition "political interference with the scientific process". The govt must decide what to fund and what not to fund. For instance this administration isnt' the first one to fail to fund any research into medical use of marijuana. Why? Political interference of course. There are plenty of reasons to research medical marijuana we all know that.

But the GOVERNMENT takes your money and gives it away to politically favorable research and thus denies money that could be used for research that you might want to have done instead.

It's all the same. Stop funding science with government money. Or at the very least stop letting government direct the funds in away. Give away blind grants to all research institutions if you must but this also means you'll have ot live with funding Intelligent Design "research" and other nonsense.

But letting the government decide which kind of science s worthy of research funding is like letting the politicians fund their own campaigns with government money according to criteria THEY set up. You have to be a fool to support govt funding of science and think it wont' "interfere with the scientific process".

natedogg

[wacki]

Natedogg,

[ QUOTE ]
Stop funding science with government money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your blind religion has nothing to do with that petition. This petition isn't about funding science, it's about acknowledging/ignoring what the science says. For instance:

The World Health Organization says xxxx grams of sugar will make you fat per day. (a big slam against high levels of softdrink/candy intake) Nestle & Pepsi donated a lot of money to president Bush's campaign. All of a sudden President Bush and his cronies make public statements that high levels of sugar intake (xxx grams/day) won't make you fat. The president then barred US scientists from talking to the WHO.

This really happened. This petition is not about the money, it's acknowledging what the evidence says is obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
You have to be a fool to support govt funding of science and think it wont' "interfere with the scientific process".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, cuz Philip Morris funded cancer research is so reliable and the National Academy of Sciences is so unreliable (/sarcasm). Do you even know what the scientific process is? Honestly, I think you are one of the worst posters on this forum.

[Frinkenstein]

Natedogg: I don't disagree with anything you've said there. Undoubtedly, there is some politics involved in the scientific funding process. There has probably been politics involved in the funding process for decades. I'm from Canada so I don't know much about how science is funded in the States.

While what you have said is concerning, I am (and the scientists who have signed the petition) referring to:

[ QUOTE ]
scientists who work for and advise the federal government have seen their work manipulated, suppressed, distorted, while agencies have systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical scientific information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check out this link, I just discovered it. It's unbelievable:
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...political.html

It documents MANY examples of blatant political interference in science.

Such as:
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...te-change.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...es-hansen.html

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]

The World Health Organization says xxxx grams of sugar will make you fat per day. (a big slam against high levels of softdrink/candy intake) Nestle & Pepsi donated a lot of money to president Bush's campaign. All of a sudden President Bush and his cronies make public statements that high levels of sugar intake (xxx grams/day) won't make you fat. The president then barred US scientists from talking to the WHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a link about this? I have never heard the president say one word about sugar intake and obesity. And even if he did, so what? We all know he's not a scientist, and he has the right to speak his mind just like anyone else.

I'm also skeptical of your claim about scientists being barred from talking to WHO. How exactly does this work? You talk to WHO, you go to jail? I somehow think this would get bigger play in the media were it the case.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to be a fool to support govt funding of science and think it wont' "interfere with the scientific process".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, cuz Philip Morris funded cancer research is so reliable and the National Academy of Sciences is so unreliable (/sarcasm). Do you even know what the scientific process is? Honestly, I think you are one of the worst posters on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice personal attack there. Did Natedogg say anything about blindly accepting the results of a study just because it came from private industry? I can figure out for myself that an RJR tobacco study that finds that smoking doesn't cause cancer probably isn't too reliable. The market provides nice feedback in terms of reputation to determine what research is legit and what isn't. No govt involvement is necessary.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a link about this? I have never heard the president say one word about sugar intake and obesity. And even if he did, so what? We all know he's not a scientist, and he has the right to speak his mind just like anyone else.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's why he hires like minded "scientists" to repeat the same stuff. It's a huge kickback circle. Look at all the buzz with the abortion-cancer risk. That link is totally bogus but it panders to religious groups.

read this:
http://www.waronscience.com/

has about 1,000 sources in the back. I could find a lot more. Lots of similar stuff w/ abstinence. There are quite a few religious wackos with Ph.D.'s out there. And lets not forget CFC's, asbestos, DDT, etc. In all of those areas industry has a huge research/misinformation machine supporting it's cause.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also skeptical of your claim about scientists being barred from talking to WHO. How exactly does this work? You talk to WHO, you go to jail? I somehow think this would get bigger play in the media were it the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Official representation is barred. My bad for not being specific enough. It still has significant effects. It's been reported by the new york times. The situation is just so complex people don't understand it. You would think Pat Michaels would be labeled a fraud for 'falsifying' (editing graphs) data to disprove NASA's global warming work. But it doesn't despite being published on SEED, NASA's website, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Nice personal attack there. Did Natedogg say anything about blindly accepting the results of a study just because it came from private industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he said "There's only one solution you know. ....Stop funding science with government money.". Which is complete bull.
That is not a solution to the problem addressed in the petition. And it would make problems a lot worse. The only thing I agree with him on is the removal of politicians from directing money. Which isn't that big of a deal within the NIH. That group is really well run. Other areas ... not so much but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[ QUOTE ]
I can figure out for myself that an RJR tobacco study that finds that smoking doesn't cause cancer probably isn't too reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be able to. But for over 10 years most of the country wasn't able to. I guarantee you I could find some studies you wouldn't be able to sort fact from fiction with. Tobacco companies and Exxon have become very very good at hiding the money trail. Lots of similar stuff is happening right now. In fact it is worse now than it was in the 80's because they've become a lot better at it. These intelligent design "research groups" are proof of that.

times up for the day pageaddict is up.

[Frinkenstein]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The World Health Organization says xxxx grams of sugar will make you fat per day. (a big slam against high levels of softdrink/candy intake) Nestle & Pepsi donated a lot of money to president Bush's campaign. All of a sudden President Bush and his cronies make public statements that high levels of sugar intake (xxx grams/day) won't make you fat. The president then barred US scientists from talking to the WHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also skeptical of your claim about scientists being barred from talking to WHO. How exactly does this work? You talk to WHO, you go to jail? I somehow think this would get bigger play in the media were it the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


No problem!
[ QUOTE ]

HHS Seeks Right of Approval Over Experts on WHO Health Panels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i]Article deleted for copyright reasons. Link substituted.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Frinkenstein]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can figure out for myself that an RJR tobacco study that finds that smoking doesn't cause cancer probably isn't too reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be able to. But for over 10 years most of the country wasn't able to. I guarantee you I could find some studies you wouldn't be able to sort fact from fiction with. Tobacco companies and Exxon have become very very good at hiding the money trail. Lots of similar stuff is happening right now. In fact it is worse now than it was in the 80's because they've become a lot better at it. These intelligent design "research groups" are proof of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. There are large segments of the public that can't tell the difference between real science and some of the bad "science" that goes on.

Check out this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

He used to do research funded by tobacco companies. A report edited by him attacked an EPA study about the cancer risks of passive smoking. Now he is an very active opponent to the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change. His non-profit organization has multiple grants from Exxon Mobil.

However, his academic credentials sound impressive...

Singer is a Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and an Adjunct Fellow of "Frontiers of Freedom" [10]. He is a fellow of a number of scientific bodies, including the American Physical Society.

Previous government and academic positions:

Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62)
Special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments (1960)
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64)
Founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70)
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71)
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1971-94)
Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89)


So, when he gets on the news, it sounds like his opinion should have some merit. When in fact, he hasn't published a peer-reviewed publication in years and his position has been widely discredited by current researchers.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Your blind religion has nothing to do with that petition. This petition isn't about funding science, it's about acknowledging/ignoring what the science says.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two sides of the same coin. Do you really think a centralized bureaucracy that selectively cherry picks data is going to have qualms about selctively funding research according to concerns such as "policy alignment" (or whatever you would call it)?

You question the objectivity of research from Philip Morris, but then advocate even more extreme concentration of funding???