(Premission for complete reproduction granted):
e-Skeptic #37 for October 8, 2004
[b]We encourage you to forward this e-Skeptic to new potential
subscribers.[/b] Newcomers can subscribe to e-Skeptic for free
by sending a blank e-mail to: join-skeptics@lyris.net
www.skeptic.com: Where Nothing is Certain... But We're Not
Sure About That...
Contents
Science in the Bush Administration
“Political” Science
From the editors of Skeptic magazine
The Politicization Of Science in the Bush Administration:
Science-As-Public Relations
Dylan Otto Krider
There’s a war going on—and not just the one in Iraq. This
conflict may not get as much media play, but it could have
just as great an impact on our safety, national prestige, and
long-term economic health. It is a war over the integrity of
science itself, and the casualties are everywhere: career
scientists and enforcement officials are resigning en masse
from government agencies, citing an inability to do their jobs
due to what they see as the ruthless politicization of science
by the Bush administration. Bruce Boler, Marianne Horinko,
Rich Biondi, J. P. Suarez and Eric Schaeffer are among those
who have resigned from the EPA alone. In a letter to The New
York Times, former EPA administrator Russell Train, who worked
for both Nixon and Ford, wrote, “I can state categorically
that there never was such White House intrusion into the
business of the EPA during my tenure.” 1 Government meddling
has reached such a level that European scientists are voicing
concerns that Bush may not merely be undermining U.S.
dominance in sciences, but global research as well. 2
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently published
the results of an investigation into the administration’s
misuse of science called “Scientific Integrity in
Policymaking,” with a letter signed by over 60 leading
scientists, including 20 Nobel Laureates. 3 President Bush’s
science adviser Dr. John Marburger III’s response was hardly
reassuring. 4 Part of Marburger’s defense was to use the
common tactic to delay action by calling for “more research,”
while in other cases he used verbal sleight of hand to avoid
addressing the actual charge. For instance, when the National
Cancer Institute’s web site was altered to suggest there was a
link between abortion and breast cancer Marburger described
the change as only a routine update. What actually troubled
the UCS was that the findings of established science had been
removed in favor of language that promoted the lonely crusade
of Dr. Joel Brind.
For those unfamiliar with Dr. Brind, he discovered the
supposed Abortion Breast Cancer link (or ABC as he calls it)
after “making contact” with a local right-to-life group
shortly after becoming a born-again Christian. “With a new
belief in a meaningful universe,” he explains, “I felt
compelled to use science for its noblest, life-saving
purpose.” 5 Despite the fact that Brind is completely at
odds with his peers, the web site was updated with the
following text:
[T]he possible relationship between abortion and
breast cancer has been examined in over thirty published
studies since 1957. Some studies have reported statistically
significant evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in
women who have had abortions, while others have merely
suggested an increased risk. Other studies have found no
increase in risk among women who have had an interrupted
pregnancy. 6
After an outcry by members of Congress, the National
Cancer Institute convened a three-day conference where experts
reviewed the evidence, again concluding “[i]nduced abortion is
not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,”
ranking the science as “well-established.” 7
To prove that he took the issue of global warming
seriously, Marburger shamelessly cited a study that President
Bush had commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences.
The administration had asked the NAS to find “weaknesses” in
climate science studies to justify their efforts to derail an
international global warming treaty. 8 When the commissioned
report instead confirmed human-induced climate change and
mentioned fossil fuels as a major culprit the EPA decided to
replace the findings in its Report on the Environment with a
discredited study funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
9
Marburger also pesented an argument that was made by
Spinsanity, a self-described government watchdog website,
which pointed out that just because a “frustrated scientist”
had leaked an EPA report on children’s health to The Wall
Street Journal, that did not prove there was a sinister intent
to surpress it because bureaucratic delays in releasing
information are common. 10
But the fact that so many scientists and government
workers have risked their jobs by leaking information to the
media makes this explaination weaker than it might be. As an
editorial in The New York Times concluded, Marburger’s
response is “little more than an attempt to put a positive
spin on some flagrant examples of tailoring science to fit
politics.” 11
Then there are those examples the UCS does not mention:
the Corn Refiners Association and Sugar Association
successfully lobbied Bush to pressure the World Health
Organization to de-emphasize the importance of cutting sweets
and eating fruits and vegetables in their anti-obesity
guidelines. 12 Two scientists were ejected from a bioethics
council due to what they believed to be their views favoring
embryo research. 13 Data on hydraulic fracturing were altered
so benzene levels met government standards after “feedback”
from an industry source. 14 Another study (sponsored by
Florida developers) claiming wetlands cause pollution, was
used by the EPA to justify replacing protected marshes with
golf courses to improve “water quality.” 15
Nothing is so trivial that it escapes top administration
advisor Karl Rove’s insistence on staying “on message”—from
forbidding NASA scientists to speak to the press about the
global warming disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow, 16 to
letting National Park Service gift shops sell books with the
“alternative view” that the Grand Canyon was formed in seven
days. 17
One need look no further than the USDA to see how
compromised the research and enforcement environment has
become. Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman was a former
food industry lawyer and lobbyist and her staff includes
representatives of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
and other industry groups. So it should be no surprise that
shortly after a dairy cow from Canada tested positive for mad
cow disease a senior scientist came forward alleging agency
pressure to let Canadian beef into the U.S. before a study
concluded it was safe. 18 Nor should it shock us that
whistleblowers accused an Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service supervisor of insisting a cow exhibiting symptoms of
the disease be sent to a rendering plant before a technician
could perform the tests mandated by agency guidelines. 19 But
even the most cynical among us might be baffled by the almost
cultish devotion to industry pandering exhibited when the USDA
refused to give Creekstone Farms Premium Beef the kits it
requested to voluntarily test its cattle so it could export to
Japan because it might “create the impression that untested
beef was not safe.” Creekstone may very well go bankrupt as a
result. 20
Such reluctance only makes sense if the USDA fears that
positive results are possible. Still, one hesitates to suggest
the USDA is trying to sell as much tainted beef as possible
before people start exhibiting symptoms. One hesitates
slightly less so after learning that EPA staffers were also
prevented from performing routine analysis of the economic and
health consequences of proposed regulations governing mercury
emissions from coal-burning power plants. After all, it’s a
lot easier to suppress unfavorable scientific findings if
there’s nothing to suppress. But surely even they realize
preventing an analysis of the consequences of our actions will
not prevent those consequences from occurring. That’s the
rub. Science doesn’t appear to factor into their reasoning at
all. The tests might come up negative. They might come up
positive. The meat is considered safe either way.
Debates over Bush’s character usually devolve into
familiar partisan arguments citing either his resoluteness in
the face of widespread negative reaction as proof of his
conviction, or the chasm between rhetoric and reality as
evidence of Bush’s disingenuous denial. Both could be true
enough to have created an atmosphere that encourages
government officials to practice outright deception to attain
administration goals. To get an exemption from the Endangered
Species Act the Pentagon simply changed a quote from an Army
study saying government regulations “enhanced” training
realism at Fort Stewart to “impaired.” 21 A Park Service
brochure used a photo—supposedly taken in 1909—to prove that
forests in the Sierra Nevadas were thinner before the
implementation of “preventative thinning.” The picture was
actually a photo taken of a recently logged forest in Montana.
Such distortions seem always to be in the service of a
crusade of true belief. Unquestionably Bush is a man of
conviction. The problem is that Bush does not seem to arrive
at these convictions through faulty human pursuits like
science. He seems to suppose his knowledge comes from a
higher source.
cove of Price of Loyalty
In the book The Price of Loyalty, Pulitzer prize-winning
author Ron Suskind records former Treasury Secretary Paul
O’Neill’s view that Bush based his decisions on “instinct,”
and left others to “ponder the intangibles that [drive] the
president—from some sweeping, unspoken notion of how the world
works; to a one-size-fits-all principle, such as ‘I won’t
negotiate with myself;’ to a squabble with a family member
over breakfast.” 22 Former Bush terrorism czar Richard
Clarke paints a similar picture of a White House staff
inclined to ignore facts in favor of having truth “revealed”
to them. Bush’s own wife says, “George is not an overly
introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with
them. He doesn’t need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision.
He doesn’t try to overthink. He likes action.” 23 Bush seems
to value gut instinct over evidence, faith over fact,
conviction over reality. He doesn’t need science to know that
our food is safe, that the Earth was created in seven days, or
that Saddam Hussein was only seconds away from handing over
nukes to al Qaeda. If studies say otherwise then agencies
have to be reorganized, committees reshuffled, and data
reinterpreted until they get it right.
When agencies that used to be tasked with providing
objective analysis no longer inform policy, their only
remaining value is in bolstering preconceived conclusions.
The ultimate danger of this view of science-as-public
relations can be seen in a recent proposal by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) that would grant the
administration greater control over peer review of “all major
government rules, plans, proposed regulations and
pronouncements.” 24 David Michaels of the Department of
Energy complained, “It goes beyond just having the White House
involved in picking industry favorites to evaluate government
science. Under this proposal, the carefully crafted process
used by the government to notify the public of an imminent
danger is going to first have to be signed off by someone
weighing the political hazards.” 25 After an outcry from
scientists, the OMB seems to have scaled back the proposal
from disastrous to merely horrifying, but if past behavior is
any guide the administration will keep returning to the cookie
jar until science is an empty vessel firmly under the
direction of the White House press office.
The White House’s inclination to mold facts to fit
preconceived notions is crippling the government’s decision
making abilities in the areas of health, safety, environment,
and more importantly, in the War on Terror. A opinion
editorial written by conservative columnist Richard Hoagland
shortly before the Iraq invasion illustrates how the White
House allowed prejudices to influence pre-war intelligence:
“Imagine that Saddam Hussein has been offering terrorist
training and other lethal support to Osama bin Laden’s al
Qaeda for years. You can’t imagine that? Sign up over there.
You can be a Middle East analyst for the Central Intelligence
Agency,” Hoagland chides before praising Bush for pressuring
intelligence officers to reach the conclusions they were
previously unwilling to make. “The ‘politicization’ accusation
suggests that those who find Iraqi links to al Qaeda are
primarily interested in currying favor with the Bush White
House.” 26 As former Bush administration official J. Dilulio
put it, “When policy analysis is just backfill, to back up a
political maneuver, you’ll get a lot of ooops.” 27
Astonishingly, even after intelligence lapses became
known, conservative columnist David Brooks was calling for
more political intrusion in the process: “For decades, the
U.S. intelligence community has propagated the myth that it
possesses analytical methods that must be insulated pristinely
from the hurly-burly world of politics,” he said. “What kind
of scientific framework can explain the rage for suicide
bombings, now sweeping the Middle East? …When it comes to
understanding the world’s thugs and menaces, I’d trust the
first 40 names in James Carville’s P.D.A. faster than I’d
trust a conference-load of game theorists or risk-assessment
officers.” 28 Never mind that those officers came ten times
closer to assessing the actual situation in Iraq than the
politicians who now interfere in the process like never
before. But recognizing that would mean bringing evidence
into the equation.
The troubles in Iraq are not so much proof of the failure
of the neocon vision for democratizing the Middle East, as
they are a reminder of the disastrous consequences of removing
empiricism from deliberation. All the problems that have
popped up in Iraq were predicted long ago—from troop strength
to the resilience of the insurgents—and available to anyone
who cared to look. The administration not only chose to look
away but actively swept them under the rug. When CIA war games
were discovered to be training personnel to deal with the
eventuality of civil disorder after the fall of Baghdad, The
Atlantic Monthly reported the Pentagon forbad representatives
from the Defense Department from participating because
“detailed thought about the postwar situation meant facing
costs and potential problems.” 29 Our refusal to face reality
hasn’t been giving democracy much of a chance.
“Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered
convictions is a virtue,” George Will wrote recently. “Being
blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from
disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in
face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.” 30
Bush has finally met his match. The Universe is the one foe
more steadfast than he is. It cannot be bullied or
intimidated. The laws of physics know no compromise. This is a
game of chicken Bush will lose. If he doesn’t take his foot
off the accelerator, then the only question is: how will we
recover from the crash?
Dylan Otto Krider is a freelance writer with a BA in
creative writing with minor in astronomy/physics from the
University of Arizona, and an MFA in writing from Vermont
College, Norwich University. He has written many articles for
the Houston Press, Texas Magazine, Kenyon Review, Fiction
Writer, Writer's Digest, and the Internet. His webpage can be
found at www.dylanottokrider.com/index.htm
back to top
page down to “Political” Science article
References:
1. Letter to Editor from Russell E. Train, “ When Politics
Trumps Science,”New York Times, June 21, 2003.
2. “Euros Concerned for US Science,” The Scientist, Mar.
9, 2004.
3. “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking,” Union of
Concerned Scientists, Mar. 2004.
4. Dr. John H. Marburger III, “Response to the Union of
Concerned Scientists’ February 2004 Document,” Apr. 2, 2004.
5. Dr. Joel Brind, “Reading the Data”, Physician Magazine,
July/August 2000.
6. National Cancer Institute, Early Reproductive Events
and Breast Cancer, Nov. 25, 2002.
7. National Cancer Institute, “Summary Report: Early
Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer,” Mar. 4, 2003.
8. “Moving Target on Policy Battlefield,” Washington Post,
May 2, 2002.
9. “Report by EPA Leaves out Data on Climate Change,” New
York Times, June 19, 2003.
10. “Letter from Concerned Scientists Not Exactly
Scrupulous on Facts,” Philadelphia Inquirer, Mar. 11, 2004.
11. “The Science Adviser’s Rejoinder,” New York Times
Editorial Page, Apr. 10, 2004.
12. “Eating Away at Science,” Mother Jones, May/June 2004.
13. “Bush Ejects Two From Bioethics Council,” The
Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2004.
14. “Research on Oil and Gas Practices,” Politics &
Science.
15. Resignation Statement of Bruce Boler, Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility web site.
16. “NASA Curbs Comments on Ice Age Disaster Movie,” New
York Times, Apr. 25, 2004.
17. “Critics Say the Park Service is Letting Religion and
Politics Affect its Policies,” New York Times, Jan. 18, 2004.
18. “U.S. Scientist Tells of Pressure to Lift Ban on Food
Imports,” New York Times, Feb. 25, 2004.
19. “Calls for Federal Inquiry Over Untested Cow,” New
York Times, May 6, 2004.
20. “U.S. Won’t Let Company Test All Its Cattle for Mad
Cow,” New York Times, Apr. 10, 2004.
21. David Brancaccio, Now, Apr. 23, 2004.
22. P. 165, Price of Loyalty.
23. “The Misunderestimated Man,” Slate, May 7, 2004
24. “White House Seeks Control of Health, Safety,” St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 11, 2004.
25. Ibid.
26. Richard Hoagland, “CIA’s New Old Iraq File”,
Washington Post, Oct. 20, 2002.
27. “Why Are These Men Laughing?” Esquire, Jan. 2003.
28. David Brooks, “The C.I.A: Method and Madness,” New
York Times, Feb. 3, 2004.
29. “Blind Into Baghdad,” Atlantic Monthly, Jan./Feb.
2004.
30. George F. Will, “Time for Bush to See the Realities”,
Washington Post, May 4, 2004.
back to top
“Political” Science
From the editors of Skeptic magazine
What, specifically, has the Bush administration done that
has so invoked the ire of a sizable portion of the scientific
community? The statement prepared by the Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS) and signed by over 4,000 scientists,
including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 recipients of the National
Medal of Science, and 127 members of the National Academy of
Science, can be found at http://www.ucsusa.org/ along with the
rebuttal by John H. Marburger III, the Director of the White
House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, and a
response to that rebuttal from UCS.
We are aware that the Union of Concerned Scientists has
historically championed what many would consider to be
left-leaning or liberal causes, and we are also sensitive to
the fact that the political climate of this election year 2004
is an emotionally-charged one; nevertheless, either the Bush
administration has taken actions to steer science in a
direction parallel to its political agenda, or it has not.
This is a factual question that can be answered with facts.
The UCS documents are extensive, so the following are just
highlights. Readers should check the facts for themselves.
Political Vetting of Scientists
In the spring of 2002, Richard Myers, Chair of the
Department of Genetics at Stanford University and Director of
Stanford’s Human Genome Center, was nominated to serve on the
National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.
According to Myers, shortly thereafter he received a call from
Secretary Tommy Thompson’s office at the Department of Health
and Human Services. After a brief review of Myers’ scientific
credentials (which are stellar), the Bush administration
official began probing into Myers’ political preferences. “She
wanted to know what I thought about President Bush: did I like
him, what did I think of the job he was doing,” Myers said.
He describes himself as “nonpolitical,” yet he told the
interviewer that:
I thought it was inappropriate to be asked these kinds
of questions which led, I think, to an awkward situation for
both of us. She said that she had been told that she needed to
ask the questions and it appeared to me that she was reading
from a prepared list. Because of her persistence, I tried to
answer in the most nonspecific way possible. I talked about
terrorism and the fact that it seemed that the attacks of
September 11 had brought the country together. But there is no
doubt that I felt the questions were an affront and highly
inappropriate.
Soon after the interview, Richard Myers was denied the
position. He appealed his case to Francis Collins, head of
the Human Genome project and chair of the National Advisory
Council, and Myers' nomination was approved.
Political Screening of Drugs
“Plan B” is an emergency contraceptive drug that consists
of two high-dose pills that interfere with either ovulation or
fertilization, or prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
The pills can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sexual
intercourse to prevent pregnancy. The drug was approved by
the FDA in 1999, and in 2003 the FDA granted the drug
over-the-counter status (which it has in 33 other countries),
when over 70 scientific organizations, including the AMA, the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the
American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed the findings of a
number of labs. In 2004, however, Steven Galson, Director of
the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, overruled
the advice of the agency’s staff and two independent
scientific advisory panels (who voted 23 to 4 to grant
over-the-counter status) by declaring Plan B “not approvable”
for nonprescription status. Although Galson denies any
political motive to his actions, there is no scientific reason
why Plan B cannot be granted nonprescription status and,
according to the UCS report, “FDA insiders also note that
after the hearings on the matter late last year, conservative
groups had mounted a political campaign to try to block the
drug’s approval” and that after the FDA received the
recommendation of its scientific advisory committees to grant
nonprescription status, “49 members of Congress wrote to
President Bush urging White House involvement.” It is well
known that the Bush administration supports a policy of
“abstinence only” when it comes to teenage sex, so such
political machinations, although difficult to prove, are
nevertheless apparent in this and other cases.
Bioethics or Biopolitics?
Ever since Dolly the sheep was cloned the field of
“bioethics” has grown dramatically. Given the current
administration’s stated objections to stem cell research,
therapeutic and reproductive cloning, and other technologies
deemed “unnatural” or “in disrespect of life,” it may not be
surprising that biologist Elizabeth Blackburn and bioethicist
William May were dismissed from the President’s Council on
Bioethics. According to Blackburn, one of the nation’s top
cancer scientists, she and May were dismissed because they
frequently disagreed with the administration’s positions on
biomedical research. For example, she was removed from the
panel soon after she objected to a Council report on stem cell
research. In an opinion editorial in The New England Journal
of Medicine, Blackburn “recounted how the dissenting opinion
she submitted, which she believes reflects the scientific
consensus in America, was not included in the council’s
reports even though she had been told the reports would
represent the views of all the council’s members.” According
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, advisory bodies
are required to be balanced, yet the removal of scientists in
disagreement with an administration’s stated position turns
bioethics into biopolitics.
back to top
[b]Permission to print, distribute, and post with proper
citation and acknowledgment.[/b] Copyright 2004 Michael
Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic
magazine. Opinions expressed are those of the authors, and not
necessarily those of the Skeptics Society, its Board of
Directors, or its members. Contact at www.skeptic.com and
skepticmag@aol.com.
If you'd like to join the distribution list (it's FREE),
email join-skeptics@lyris.net . To unsubscribe, send an email
to leave-skeptics@lyris.net
back to top
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14744291
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/466053
