government science

[galaxee]

from Nature, one of the world's top science journals:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/0602...l/439896a.html
Feb 20, 2006

"Major US science agencies such as NASA, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are all part of the executive branch of government, meaning that their employees answer ultimately to the president. In recent weeks, several researchers have gone public with charges that their government minders censored or otherwise manipulated their findings" (bold mine)

and a couple of examples:

"The latest round began last month, when James Hansen, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, charged that NASA was trying to stop him doing media interviews that might cover policies on greenhouse-gas emissions."

what a surprise.

"Susan Wood, a former scientist at the Food and Drug Administration, spoke of her reasons for resigning last August, after her boss repeatedly delayed a decision to make the Plan B contraceptive more widely available. The morale of scientists at her former agency was at its lowest point ever, Wood said."

morale destroyed for a governmental definition of 'moral values'... what a way to do science.

stuff like this makes me sick. it defeats the entire purpose of scientific inquiry. the data is the data, we say in my lab. you can't fight it. you can't hide it. you can't discard it. but the government is above scientific conduct rules i guess.

[larkinmj]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 8 2006, 10:36 PM) [snapback]268408[/snapback]</div>

from Nature, one of the world's top science journals:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/0602...l/439896a.html
Feb 20, 2006

"Major US science agencies such as NASA, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are all part of the executive branch of government, meaning that their employees answer ultimately to the president. In recent weeks, several researchers have gone public with charges that their government minders censored or otherwise manipulated their findings" (bold mine)

and a couple of examples:

"The latest round began last month, when James Hansen, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, charged that NASA was trying to stop him doing media interviews that might cover policies on greenhouse-gas emissions."

what a surprise.

"Susan Wood, a former scientist at the Food and Drug Administration, spoke of her reasons for resigning last August, after her boss repeatedly delayed a decision to make the Plan B contraceptive more widely available. The morale of scientists at her former agency was at its lowest point ever, Wood said."

morale destroyed for a governmental definition of 'moral values'... what a way to do science.

stuff like this makes me sick. it defeats the entire purpose of scientific inquiry. the data is the data, we say in my lab. you can't fight it. you can't hide it. you can't discard it. but the government is above scientific conduct rules i guess.
[/b]

I'm a scientist and I work for the federal government, and what I see is disheartening. I have a lot of friends and colleagues who work at the EPA, and they are disgusted with the direction that agency has taken.
Galaxee- are you a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists? If not, you should check it out. One of their major initiatives is restoring scientific integrity- http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/

[eyeguy13]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 8 2006, 09:43 PM) [snapback]268413[/snapback]</div>

I'm a scientist and I work for the federal government, and what I see is disheartening. I have a lot of friends and colleagues who work at the EPA, and they are disgusted with the direction that agency has taken.
Galaxee- are you a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists? If not, you should check it out. One of their major initiatives is restoring scientific integrity- http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
[/b]

Hey Mike,
Any idea why Christie Whitman left the EPA??? Any inside info? She hasn't really publically said, but I have a feeling it's because of the direction the EPA was going under the Bush Regime.

[larkinmj]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eyeguy13 @ Jun 8 2006, 11:49 PM) [snapback]268426[/snapback]</div>

Hey Mike,
Any idea why Christie Whitman left the EPA??? Any inside info? She hasn't really publically said, but I have a feeling it's because of the direction the EPA was going under the Bush Regime.
[/b]

Undoubtably. Bush said during the 2000 campaign that he would add CO2 to the list of federally regulated pollutants; he reversed himself after the election. The EPA had announced in 2001 that they were reducing the acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water from 50 ppb to 10 ppb (as recommended by EPA scientists and the National Academy of Sciences.) The EPA however did not implement the new regs under order by the White House, giving in to pressure from the mining industry. Whitman was constantly being undercut.

[galaxee]

thanks for the link, michael.

i can't imagine what it's like to work for the government... and i don't plan to ever find out. we rely on the government enough in academia, and i plan on getting outta this place and never looking back. i'd hate to have my hard work twisted around until unrecognizable and added to the propaganda machine. and the kind of work i do right now is definitely propaganda fodder if twisted enough. (war on drugs, etc)

so from your perspective, is this really as common of an occurrence as they make it out to be?

[skruse]

Political dogma is more common than people realize. I was with the Dept of Interior for 12 years. Agencies are bureaucratic by nature. Science tends to be on the cutting edge and rarely sits well when agencies need to translate findings into policy. It is even worse when a political regime imposes dogma and cuts funding. You can be moral, objective, honest, forward thinking, conservative, cautious and prudent - and still left out in the open feeling dejected. In too many cases career people hang on to ensure the paycheck comes every two weeks and looking toward retirement while trying every effort to not rock the boat or bring undue attention to yourself.

If you speak out, you are suspect. "The old myths have not yet died and the new myths are not yet fully accepted."

[larkinmj]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 9 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]268540[/snapback]</div>

thanks for the link, michael.

i can't imagine what it's like to work for the government... and i don't plan to ever find out. we rely on the government enough in academia, and i plan on getting outta this place and never looking back. i'd hate to have my hard work twisted around until unrecognizable and added to the propaganda machine. and the kind of work i do right now is definitely propaganda fodder if twisted enough. (war on drugs, etc)

so from your perspective, is this really as common of an occurrence as they make it out to be?
[/b]

Scientists have always been frustrated dealing with bureaucracy, especially in government agencies. That is nothing new. People in administrative positions- the people who control funding, major programmatic decisions, etc., have often had a misunderstanding, or even contempt, for science. Then they make decisions that often seem not to be based on any rational basis whatsoever.

But there are two major differences with the Bush administration. In the old days, your work might be ignored, or not given proper consideration. But you were generally at least left free to do your research the right way, at least as long as you had funding to do it. But now there is a deliberate attempt to subvert science by either allowing non-scientists to "edit" results of scientific research (such as Philip A Cooney, formercchief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, did to published reports on global warming); or by replacing scientists with industry shills on regulatory and advisory panels. It's gone beyond disregard for science- this is deliberate distortion and misrepresentation. And it often effects important decisions regarding the environment, health, food safety, etc.

The other change is that this administration is cracking down on whistleblowers. The latest Supreme Court decision which decided that government whistleblowers are not protected by free speech is only the latest move to supress them. Traditionally, the one last recourse that a government whistleblower would have if faced with reprisal was to file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel. However, Bush put a partisan hack, Scott Bloch, in charge of the OSC. Under his tenure, numerous complaints by whistleblowers have gone uninvestigated. In particular, h has not investigated any complaints of discrimination based on sexual orientation, and he has conducted a witchhunt against gays in his own agency. So if you're an employee of the federal government and you become aware of fraud, waste or abuse, the message is keep your mouth shut if you want to keep your job. Twenty years ago at the lab where I work, an employee reported gross dumping of hazardous substances into a bay in violation of environmental regulations. The government had tried to force him out, but the ended up offering him a settlement. Today, that employee would likely be dumped into the bay along with the chemicals.

[fshagan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 8 2006, 07:36 PM) [snapback]268408[/snapback]</div>

from Nature, one of the world's top science journals:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/0602...l/439896a.html
Feb 20, 2006

"Major US science agencies such as NASA, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are all part of the executive branch of government, meaning that their employees answer ultimately to the president. In recent weeks, several researchers have gone public with charges that their government minders censored or otherwise manipulated their findings" (bold mine)

and a couple of examples:

"The latest round began last month, when James Hansen, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, charged that NASA was trying to stop him doing media interviews that might cover policies on greenhouse-gas emissions."

what a surprise.

"Susan Wood, a former scientist at the Food and Drug Administration, spoke of her reasons for resigning last August, after her boss repeatedly delayed a decision to make the Plan B contraceptive more widely available. The morale of scientists at her former agency was at its lowest point ever, Wood said."

morale destroyed for a governmental definition of 'moral values'... what a way to do science.

stuff like this makes me sick. it defeats the entire purpose of scientific inquiry. the data is the data, we say in my lab. you can't fight it. you can't hide it. you can't discard it. but the government is above scientific conduct rules i guess.
[/b]

Just a couple of points ... in the case of the media interviews, is that the scientist's job? The people paying the bills, be it government or private industry, often dictate what kind of information gets out. The solution in a free society is simple ... fund your own research and talk all you want. If the boss doesn't want you talking out of school, then don't.

Public policy on approvals of things like "plan b contraceptions" ... which "may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium" along with preventing ovulation or fertilization ... are dictated by the political view of the bosses. And should be. They are the elected ones, remember? Science can say if its safe, or effective, but science cannot say if the drug should be available. The "will of the people" should do that, and when a candidate who is pro-life wins, these kinds of decisions are expected. An pill that "may be" an abortion pill isn't going to fly with a pro-life/anti-abortion administration.

The line may have been crossed by the Bush administration, but I'd have to look at these two cases critically to see if they have been in these specific cases.

[larkinmj]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 10 2006, 02:02 AM) [snapback]269075[/snapback]</div>

Just a couple of points ... in the case of the media interviews, is that the scientist's job? The people paying the bills, be it government or private industry, often dictate what kind of information gets out. The solution in a free society is simple ... fund your own research and talk all you want. If the boss doesn't want you talking out of school, then don't.

Public policy on approvals of things like "plan b contraceptions" ... which "may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium" along with preventing ovulation or fertilization ... are dictated by the political view of the bosses. And should be. They are the elected ones, remember? Science can say if its safe, or effective, but science cannot say if the drug should be available. The "will of the people" should do that, and when a candidate who is pro-life wins, these kinds of decisions are expected. An pill that "may be" an abortion pill isn't going to fly with a pro-life/anti-abortion administration.

The line may have been crossed by the Bush administration, but I'd have to look at these two cases critically to see if they have been in these specific cases.
[/b]

Dr. Hansen has felt compelled to speak publicly because the findings of his research has been supressed. In the case of the scientist at the FDA, it was her supervisor who kept Plan B from being made available. The FDA is not supposed to make political decisions; they are only supposed to determine if a drug is effective and safe.

[geologyrox]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 10 2006, 02:02 AM) [snapback]269075[/snapback]</div>

Just a couple of points ... in the case of the media interviews, is that the scientist's job? The people paying the bills, be it government or private industry, often dictate what kind of information gets out. The solution in a free society is simple ... fund your own research and talk all you want. If the boss doesn't want you talking out of school, then don't. <snip>
[/b]

I think this concept is just downright dangerous - not you in particular, but the idea that results should only be shared if they meet the expectations of those doing the funding. If pharmecuticals buried a set of tests that indicated their product was dangerous, and the scientists doing the work stayed quiet, we'd be outraged. You should be similarly outraged when the government tries to use the same sham science practices, especially because they are SUPPOSED to be serving the people. The fact that we've elected someone who promotes a certain idealogy does not mean that they should be allowed to manipulate our scientists or their findings.