There's an article in this weeks Science magazine by David Baltimore (Nobel Laureate for discovering reverse transcriptase, an enzyme that is required by retroviruses like HIV to replicate) commenting on the science policy of the current administration. It seems there is now acknowledgement of the accuracy of the science but decisions are still made based on religious or market grounds.....
Science and the Bush Administration
David Baltimore
In various ways, the scientific community in the United States--and in other nations as well--has expressed concern about the way in which decisions about scientific issues have been subjected to political tests by the Bush administration. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), in a statement that I signed along with many others, said in pertinent part: "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions." The UCS and John H. Marburger III, President Bush's science advisor, have continued to trade charge and countercharge. Now a committee of the National Academies is examining some of the issues at stake, including the important matter of criteria for appointing scientists to government posts and advisory committees.
I leave this unfinished debate in those capable hands. But as we approach the election, it is important to examine the most critical issues at the interface of science and politics in the determination of public policy. And on several of these issues, a new pattern of behavior by the administration is becoming clear. The sequence is as follows: A government position is taken on a matter of scientific importance; policy directions are announced and scientific justifications for those policies are offered; strong objections from scientists follow; the scientific rationale is then abandoned or changed, but the policies based on that science remain, stuck in the same place.
U.S. policy with respect to HIV/AIDS is a case in point. The virus is spreading at an alarming rate, devastating Africa and now making horrifying inroads into the teeming continent of Asia. Stopping the spread, especially among the youngest and most productive members of society, should be the highest international priority. With a vaccine far in the future, stemming the tide requires that we educate people to protect themselves; and although abstinence and fidelity prevent exposure to HIV, under most circumstances the only safe and effective protection is condoms.
Initially, the Bush administration gave scant recognition to the protective value of condom use. The Centers for Disease Control Web site (which was once changed to suggest, incorrectly, a possible relation between abortion history and breast cancer) contains a confusing mixture: some emphasis on condom failure rates and a plug for abstinence. Complaints apparently led to the addition of a positive statement about condom effectiveness. The U.S. Agency for International Development now promotes condom use. But the emphasis is on use in selected target populations, although the value of much more widespread use has been demonstrated repeatedly in scientific studies.
Climate change has had a similar history. Repeated administration statements questioned the science behind the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global warming seen in the past 100 years is associated with human activity. Now, at last, comes a statement from an interagency administration committee, signed by cabinet secretaries, confirming the IPCC position. In the policy domain, however, we still have a long-range research program aimed toward a "hydrogen economy," but no commitment to current mitigation of this growing crisis.
As for stem cells, the arbitrary decision to restrict federally supported research to the few cell lines available before the president's statement in 2001 still holds. After sustained criticism from the scientific community, the administration has conceded that the research is valuable. It has made funding available for research but nevertheless maintains the cell line restriction. And it supports legislation that would criminalize research involving nuclear transfer from somatic donor cells--work focused on making stem cell research more valuable, both therapeutically and experimentally.
In these cases, either religious conservatism or economically based political caution has played a determining role in administration policy. However, it looks as though the criticism from individual scientists and from the UCS has been influential in causing the administration to be more honest about the underlying science. We should welcome this new posture. Nevertheless, although the realities of the science may be better accepted, the policy implications are still being ignored. Our goal now should be to have the policies track the science.
Sadly, his point that "...either religious conservatism or economically based political caution has played a determining role in administration policy" is, in my opinion, accurate of the current administration. Should Bush be reelected, the situation shall only get worse.
__________________
Dr.G.
14" G4 iBook
15" MacBook Pro (July, 2009)
13" MacBooK Pro with Retina Display
Paix
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read these books." Mark Twain
The government's stance on stem cell research is ignorant and frustrating. People suffering from disabling diseases like Parkinson's could be helped if the science communities weren't bound by the administration's policies.
-----
We're talking about the same administration that threatened to break down the barrier between state and church in regards to its funding policy to the homeless (as I recall). Also little Dubya called his War on Terror a crusade initially. His intentions were laid bare in his ignorance or zealousness.
__________________
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." - Sir Winston Churchill
__________________ Spring Cleaning Sale email for flyer..sweet prices across the board • Many Retina's, Airs, new iMacs all on sale - great • OWC at par Trades welcome
The point is that the Bush administration is no longer using scientific evidence as the rationale for its position on these topics. It tried to justify its policies based on bad science and its bluff was called by scientists. Now it is saying, in effect, that while we know global warming is happening, we choose to ignore it. While we know condoms are the only practical means of retarding the spread of HIV, we are sticking to abstinence. While we know stem cell research has enormous potential, we are limiting our researchers to 20 odd lines that we allowed in 2001 (even though only 4 or 5 of these are viable).
This is arrogance and ignorance all rolled into one mess. We don't care about evidence (or lack of). We will do what we want to do because we're the ones in power. We are in global denial.
All governments do this. People are free to have their own opinions and choose to listen to whomever they wish. From what I remember, governments are made up of people who have their own agenda and choose to believe what they want and will use their power to push the economy and society in their desired direction. There's nothing new here.
I disagree completely with George W. on stem cell research. He's playing to the choir on this one.
I also disagree with him on his stance toward Cuba. The best way to totally defeat Fidels tired and failed revolution would be to call the old tyrant's bluff and open up all of America to Cuba. And vice versa.
"El Comandante" would be "El Perdido" in no time flat.
But...again, he's playin to the choir. And betting on the million-plus Cuban escapees in Florida to support his second term on voting day, because of this.
I have faint, but very real, hope that he will reverse his stance on both of these issues once he no longer has to worry about campaigning for a next term.
Most of the rest of the stuff he's doing is just fine with me. The right course of action, IMHO.
Seems like a majority of American voters seem to agree with me on this right now. Go figure.
Perhaps we all would like the U.S. to be more progressive considering the funding available and the research that it could produce if policies changed. It's hard not to single out the self-proclaimed leader of the free world.
__________________
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." - Sir Winston Churchill
Spring Cleaning Sale email for flyer..sweet prices across the board • Many Retina's, Airs, new iMacs all on sale - great • OWC at par Trades welcome
Linear Mode
