Political Interference in the Scientific Process

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So a Government department wants to ensure that the appropriate people attend conferences and work on committees. That is banning scientists from "talking to the WHO"? Every responsible agency or company screens participation in conferences/committees attended on their nickel. Hyperbole doesnt help your case any.

[Frinkenstein]

Copernicus: Did you even read the article? Did you miss the part that said:

[ QUOTE ]
The new vetting policy was revealed in a letter from William Steiger to Denis G. Aitken, Assistant Director-General of WHO. In the letter, Steiger said that the WHO could no longer directly contact HHS experts directly regarding their participation on health panels, but should submit requests by area of expertise and allow HHS to suggest which expert would be most appropriate. Steiger also stated in the letter to Aitken that U.S. Government experts could not serve on panels in their individual capacity as scientists, but must "serve as representatives of the U.S. Government at all times and advocate U.S. Government policies," a claim which may violate First Amendment rights.4

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) promptly wrote a letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson asking that the policy be rescinded. Waxman argued that under the new policy "the Administration will be able to refuse to provide any experts whenever it wishes to stall international progress on controversial topics. Similarly, officials will be able to suppress the views of scientists whose research does not provide results supporting administration policies…This unprecedented process will delay and politicize cooperation on a range of critical public health issues."5

[/ QUOTE ]

The policy is obviously not about screening participation in conferences/committees attended on their nickel, as you have suggested.

At any rate, WordWhiz wanted a link, so I provided one.

There are MANY other cases of government misrepresentation and suppression of science from the last 5-6 years.

[Copernicus]

Your bolded sentence still doesnt support the premise. If you work as a scientist developing frying oils for General Foods, can you expect to keep your job if you, on your own time, undermine General Foods' interest participating in a trans fats study?

All employees, scientists or shipping clerks, government or privte, are expected to comport themselves in accordance with their employers interests. If you dont like their positions find another job.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]



Thanks for making this excellent post which wholly substantiates all my objections to government funding of science.

natedogg

[Frinkenstein]

If you don't want government to fund science, where do you propose the funding come from?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't want government to fund science, where do you propose the funding come from?

[/ QUOTE ]
People that want to fund it perhaps?

[Frinkenstein]

Who has the money to fund science besides corporations?

Surely you're not suggesting that all science should be funded by corporations?

Case in point: all the junk science regarding the tobacco industry.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't want government to fund science, where do you propose the funding come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

People who value research.

If you don't want government to fund Xboxes, Krispy Kremes, and Air Jordans, where do you propose the funding come from?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Who has the money to fund science besides corporations?

Surely you're not suggesting that all science should be funded by corporations?

Case in point: all the junk science regarding the tobacco industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you would value some "real" science.

Why does the existence of junk science bother you? You know it's junk, so ignore it.

[Borodog]

I would like a government funded Xbox, but really, I think we must place our national priorities on the No Pony Left Behind project first.