government science

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

 

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

 

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

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.

 

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."

 

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

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.

 

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

 

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

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.

 

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

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.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 10 2006, 12:02 PM) [snapback]269183[/snapback]</div>

You also have to considering the alternative to public funding for science. For example, if medical research is not funded by the government, then it would all be funded by pharmaceutical companies. That is clearly NOT in the public interest.

 

This isn't news, the bushies have been destroying government science since they got in the White House. It was one of their top priorities, which is one of many reasons why they were ignoring terrorist threats up until 9/11. The bottome line is that if it comes from government, you can't depend on it. It'll take decades to fix what they've done and restore the credibility of governmental science. If we can get the bushies out of the White House, that is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 10 2006, 01:02 AM) [snapback]269075[/snapback]</div>

Hansen's work under NASA is public domain. We paid for it with our tax dollars. Yes, it is part of his job to communicate his findings with the public, and NASA provides media training to do so. That's one of the reasons this is so unpalletable.

 

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

But obviously you can suppress it if it doesn't coincide with your worldview.

There ARE WMDs.
Well, there COULD have been.

There is no evidence of global warming.
Okay, maybe a little.

 

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

While you are at it, critically review the shrub's white house editing of the EPA report on environment re global warming, their editing of the state of education of in America, .. and their editing of the National health report -- exercises in suppresion of information deemed politically expedient.

Curious that someone as interested in politics as you would have turned a blind eye to this for so long. I'd have thought you would be preparing your apologist rhetoric way ahead of time.