| |
We welcome your
comments. Email
us your comments.
return
to statement...
Defend Science
Statement Sources
• to attempt to reshape
government scientific panels to obtain policy recommendations on issues
ranging from health and medicine, to education, to the environment,
- Numerous examples too many and too
egregious to list - in UCS
Report [Section II: Undermining the Integrity of Science Advisory
Councils - Political Litmus Tests] and Esther Kaplan [Councils of
Quacks section, page 108 - in Weird Science chapter]
• Scientific
American published an editorial under the title: "Bush-League
Lysenkoism: The White House Seeks to Bend Science To Its Will."
Scientific American, In
Focus, April 26, 2004
• HIV-prevention
studies have come under attack for even attempting to study prevalent
sexual practices. Endless
Inquisitions section, Weird Science
chapter, in Esther Kaplan
• Funds have been
cut and researchers have faced intimidation and harassment from
fundamentalists inside and outside of government who insist that
scientific study of HIV/AIDS begin and end with the demand for
"abstinence-only" programs. Endless Inquisitions section,
Weird Science chapter, in Esther Kaplan
• Research into
human sexuality in general has been suppressed Weird Science chapter in Esther Kaplan;
and “Scientific McCarthyism”: AIDS, Sex Scientists on Federal List Fear
Their Research Is In Jeopardy, San Francisco Chronicle October 28,
2003; NIH Questions Researchers on AIDS Grants, Associated Press,
October 28, 2003.
• faulty studies
and outright disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms and
other birth control methods have been promoted and disseminated by the
Administration. - A
fact sheet on the CDC website that included information on proper
condom use, the effectiveness of different types of condoms, and
studies showing that condom education does not promote sexual activity
was replaced in October 2002 with a document that emphasizes condom
failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.- From UCS
referencing A. Clymer, “U.S. Revises Sex Information, and a Fight Goes
On,” New York Times, December 27, 2002. A comparison of the two
versions of the CDC website about condoms can be seen online - see UCS
report for addresses. There are various other examples and references -
for example, Study Faults Abstinence Courses by Brian Wingfield, NY
Times, December 2, 2004
• The Department of
Health and Human Services is known to have deleted from its web site
scientific health information which conflicted with the
Administration's "abstinence-only" approach to sex education... UCS section [Scientific Knowledge on
Abstinence-only Education Distorted] and Kaplan [Disappearance of
Disagreeable Facts section in Weird Science chapter]. Example above,
and In a case the New York Times labeled “an egregious distortion
of the evidence,” information suggesting a link between abortion and
breast cancer was posted on the National Cancer Institute website
despite objections from Centers for Disease Control (CDC) staff, who
noted that substantial scientific study has long refuted the
connection. After public outcry on the matter, the information has
since been revised and no longer implies a connection. “Abortion and
Breast Cancer,” New York Times, January 6, 2003. For a detailed account
of this issue, see K. Malek, “The abortion-breast cancer link: how
politics trumped science and informed consent,” Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeons, Summer 2003
• In studies by
government scientists on global warming and its potentially devastating
consequences for the planet and humanity, titles of reports have been
changed and whole sections taken out by high political officials.
Extensive exposure in NY
Times, October 19, 2004, Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a
Partisan Issue by Andrew Revkin.
• There are
repeated efforts by government officials to over-rule scientists on
such things as which plant and animal species to include on the
"Endangered Species" list, which natural habitats are in critical need
of preservation, what air and water quality standards need to be, and
so on... Significant and
numerous examples in UCS Report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.
The case of Coho salmon is especially egregious. “The four cases
regarding application of the Endangered Species Act demonstrate a
disturbing pattern of administration officials suppressing or
distorting the best available science when it conflicts with their
policy objectives.” And also the UCS report on lead poisoning and
mercury emissions.
• In a practice
many have denounced as "Scientific McCarthyism," To our knowledge, first used by Waxman in
letter to Tommy Thompson. “Scientific McCarthyism”: AIDS, Sex
Scientists on Federal List Fear Their Research Is In Jeopardy, San
Francisco Chronicle October 28, 2003.
• scientists who
are candidates for scientific advisory boards and panels have been
asked whom they voted for - During
her confirmation process for the Council of the National Institute on
Drug Abuse, Dr. Sterk reports she was subjected to repeated questioning
about her political views in three separate calls from a White House
staff member. Among the questions she was asked, and refused to answer,
was whether she had voted for President Bush. Despite her refusal [to
answer], however, Dr. Sterk states that the White House staffer
continued trying to elicit an answer about her vote in the presidential
election for roughly 15 minutes. “Scientific Integrity in
Policymaking, UCS Report” which contains many more such examples.
• or whether they
support particular policies of the Administration, - Dr. Sterk
was asked many other overtly political questions that she refused to
answer, such as whether she supported “faith-based” drug treatment
programs. “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking, UCS Report”,
which contain many more such examples
• and some have
been denied appointments because of their political views.- Torsten Wiesel, a Nobel
laureate in physiology and medicine, was rejected by Tommy Thompson's
office as a candidate for the advisory board of the Fogarty Center at
the NIH, the director of the center was told by an official from the
Department of Health and Human Services that Wiesel had "signed too
many full-page letters in The New York Times critical of President
Bush." From Nature, July 15, 2004, p. 281 quoted in Dishonesty in
Science, New York Review of Books, By Richard C. Lewontin. “Scientific
Integrity in Policymaking”, the UCS Report contains many more such
examples including the case of Dr. Sharon Smith, an expert on Arctic
marine ecology at the University of Miami and a nominee to the Arctic
Research Commission whose mandate covered the debate on oil exploration
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), was directly asked, “Do
you support the President?” On answering that she was not a fan of
Bush’s economic and foreign policies, “that was the end of the
interview. I [Dr. Smith] was removed from consideration immediately.”
[NY Times, October 19, 2004, Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became
a Partisan Issue by Andrew Revkin]
• Official
government-run bookstores at the Grand Canyon have carried books
promoting as fact the literalist Biblical notion that the Grand Canyon
was formed only a few thousand years ago by "Noah's Flood," Weird Science, Page 90, Esther Kaplan,
full story mainly drawn from interviews with Jeff Ruch, director,
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
• The President
claims: "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God
created the earth," New York
Times, October 22, 2000, THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: MATTERS OF FAITH; Bush Uses
Religion as Personal and Political Guide, By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
We welcome your
comments. Email
us your comments.
return to statement...
|
|
You can sign the Statement on this
website. Just click here to add your name to
the growing list.
Join in the battle to defend
science!
Scientists and Members of the Scientific Community:
• Sign and Circulate This Statement.
• Help Raise Funds to Have it Printed in Newspapers Across the Country,
and Internationally.
• Get This Statement Adopted by Scientific, Educational and Other
Associations and Institutions.
Members of the General Public:
• Reprint and Circulate This
Statement, Help Spread the Word, Contribute Your Ideas About How to
Wage This Crucial Battle & Join With People in the Scientific
Community and Others to Wage This Battle.
• Help raise funds to print the Statement in as many newspapers and
journals as possible, in the U.S. and internationally.
|
|
