PDA

View Full Version : Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts




zimv20
Feb 18, 2004, 01:23 PM
link (http://nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?hp)


The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.

The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations.

Together, the two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."

The White House had no immediate comment on the statements.

Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried asserted that what he called "the cavalier attitude toward science" could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.

The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take clear shape, a day after Senator John Kerry won the Wisconsin Democratic primary and solidified his position as President Bush's likely opponent in the fall. The organization's report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare — much longer than originally planned — and had been released as soon as it was ready.

"I don't see it as a partisan issue at all," said Russell Train, who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, and who spoke in the conference call in support of the statement. "If it becomes that way I think it's because the White House chooses to make it a partisan issue," Mr. Train said.



IJ Reilly
Feb 18, 2004, 01:30 PM
Speaking of which:

WASHINGTON — A federal judge threatened Tuesday to hold National Park Service officials in contempt for violating his orders and deciding last week to allow more snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he found it "mystifying" that the National Park Service on Wednesday decided to allow 780 snowmobiles per day in Yellowstone after he had ordered last year that no more than 493 be allowed each day this winter.

"It's just a nonchalant attitude of the government to a federal judge's order," the judge said. He set a March 9 hearing on a possible contempt finding.

The National Park Service increased the number of snowmobiles allowed in Yellowstone after another federal judge, Clarence Brimmer in Wyoming, ordered officials Feb. 10 to end a Clinton administration plan that bans individual snowmobiles entirely beginning next winter.

Brimmer, ruling in a suit brought by snowmobile groups against the government, also told the National Park Service to write temporary rules for the last few weeks of this winter season, which ends in mid-March.

Sullivan, ruling in December in a suit brought by environmental groups, upheld the Clinton plan and its 493-snowmobile ceiling this year.

Andrew Emrich, a Justice Department attorney, denied that the Park Service had taken a nonchalant attitude.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 18, 2004, 01:39 PM
sounds like judges making laws. this is not how our system is suppose to work. they are suppose to interpet and enforce laws. Face it we have Judges who want to make policy.

zimv20
Feb 18, 2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
we have Judges who want to make policy.

...and legislators redefining physics and chemistry...

Taft
Feb 18, 2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
sounds like judges making laws. this is not how our system is suppose to work. they are suppose to interpet and enforce laws. Face it we have Judges who want to make policy.

I don't buy this line.

A judge's job is to decide whether certain behavior or laws are valid when compared to the constitution or other existing laws. This means that every time a case is brought before a judge to be decided, that judge is supposed to look at the existing laws and the constitution and say either, "Yes this behavior or law is valid." or, "No this behavior or law is invalid."

In short, it is their job to tell people what they can or can't do or which laws they can or can't put on the books. They cannot "make laws." They can only tell us which laws are valid under the constitution and other laws. Same with behavior. They cannot make certain behavior illegal. They can only decide whether certain behavior is valid under the law.

It is true that a judge's decision can have long reaching consequences. But the same can be said of congress. Congress could pass a law tommorrow saying, "dwarves can't vote." Would that law be constitutional? Thats up to a judge to decide. The point of giving judges the power to decide whether behavior and laws are valid is to keep our legislature and executive branch in check.

What I think people are really complaining about is the bias of judges. If a judge has a ridiculously liberal or conservative bias, he/she will likely interpret laws in such a way as to support their bias. This might mean that a law is being misinterpreted as a result of the bias. Or it might mean that the law is simply too vague in that it gives the judge too much "wiggle room" for injecting their own beliefs into decisions on that law. Bias is an unfortunate consequence of having humans doing the judging, but it is nearly unavoidable. Even the most fair judge has likely exhibited bias in one decision or another. The appointment process is supposed to ensure that the various judges installed on the bench represent a balanced set of viewpoints.

Another problem many people see is that judges aren't executing the "will of the people" in the same way that the legislature is. Since a judge isn't representing citizens of the US, their decisions could be directly contrary to the "will of the people" (aka. what the majority thinks). This, too, is a good thing. This country wasn't founded on mob rule. The majority (acting through elected officials in congress) should not be able to do whatever they want. The judges exist so that if the majority starts doing things which violate the constitution, they can keep them in check.

The bahavior of these judges is essential to the survival of our country, at least in the form with which it was initially created. Without giving broad power to the judges, the other branches of government would abuse the broad power we have given them.

I find it alarming that many conservative commentators have taken up the "legislating from the bench" argument. It reeks of an attempt to bypass the judiciary for executive decisions made in this country. Would they be so eager if we had a Democrat-controlled congress and white house? Somehow I doubt it.

Taft

IJ Reilly
Feb 18, 2004, 03:38 PM
The reason this entire matter came before a judge is because after ten years of study, the Bush administration created a policy which was not supported by the evidence and countermanded a previously adopted policy that was supported by the scientific evidence. Consequently, the question naturally arose whether the NPS policy was in conformance with federal environmental protection laws.

wwworry
Feb 18, 2004, 04:25 PM
This administration has a long history of editing out facts that they do not like. Scientists were about to propose stricter lead policies for situations where children come in contact with lead (which, as we all know, has detrimental effects on developing children) when the administration removed some scientists from the commitee and replaced them with industry advocates.

Sure you could say that one needs industry imput but in this case it was industry editing of scientific information before it got out. What was usually the case in other administrations and which makes sence to me is to first gather information then decide based on all available information. What this administration does is to just get information from their corporate supporters.

This is all very well documented in The Price of Loyalty by Suskind.

IJ Reilly
Feb 18, 2004, 05:12 PM
The funny thing is, back in the Gingrich era, we were forever hearing about how government decisions should be backed up with "good science." I think we're now see how "good science" is defined.