BushCo's war on science

[magellan]

Anyone read the March 13 New Yorker? It contains an article called "Political Science: The Bush Administration's war on the laboratory" by Michael Specter. I highly recommend it if you're in the mood for tearing your hair out in rage. Here's one excerpt from Specter's very revealing and sobering report:

"I am very respectful of faith, belief, and any principled stance on abortion," Steven Hyman, the provost of Harvard University and a professor of neurobiology at Harvard Medical School, said recently when we met in his office in Harvard Square. Hyman was appointed to run the National Institute of Mental Health during the Clinton Administration and remained in his job after Bush took office. He is still troubled by what he saw as the intrusion of church onto state territory.

"The first inkling that things were different under Bush was when I put in a slate for my national advisory council," Hyman said. "I got a call from one of the people I had nominated and he said, 'Steve, is this normal? I was just called by somebody saying he was a White House liaison to the Department of Health and Human Services. He asked me whether I made political donations, and if so to whom, and who did I vote for.'"

Hyman said that he had "no context" in which to understand this kind of enquiry. It turned out to be an experience that others had shared. "People went to Marburger {Bush's science advisor} to complain about it and his answer was pretty much 'What are you guys complaining about? This is normal.'" (Marburger recently told me that he doesn't think scientists should be asked whom they voted for. He has also said, however, that "it's perfectly acceptable for the President to know if someone he's appointing to one of his advisory committees supports his policies or not."

Hyman disagrees. "This is not normal," he said. "It has never happened in anyone's memory at N.I.H., and, frankly, the guy who called me was a molecular biologist. I swear to you that there is no such thing as right-wing or left-wing molecular biology."

Apparently there is in Bush**World.

What a chilling, in-your-face double-standard. Government scientists and advisors are being actively and intrusively screened by the WH for their political leanings...and yet daring to ask Bush**'s SCOTUS nominees how they feel on matters of science (like medical abortion) is out of bounds!

[salvorhardin]

1. Sad, but true

The way in which science research is funded has also changed. There used to be a rather broad based funding of research, since you never really know what will be useful down the road. Under the Bush administration though this has changed so that funding has been either cut or flatlined for just about everything but NIH and DOD.
http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-6/p24.html

I wrote a little about why basic science research is important here: http://www.neuralgourmet.com/node/487

[magellan]

4. Have you seen this month's Scientific American?

There's a letter to the editor and response that might give you the same grim satisfaction it did me:

The Church of Darwin

I would appreciate it if Steve Mirsky did not jam his religion of evolution down our throats. He just cannot get off touting his religion as the only true religion, repeating his mantra again in "The Trials of Life" (Anti Gravity). Thank you for reprimanding Mirsky about proselytizing his personal religion, instead of reporting on science.

Bob Langenbach
SeaTac, WA

Mirsky replies: Langenbach's faith in his conclusion that I have been reprimanded is unfounded. He causes one to ponder, however, the benefits of decreeing evolution to be a religion--biologists could tap the vast amount of research funding suddenly available through the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and academic departments would receive tax-exempt status. Alas, evolution remains science.

edited typo

[salvorhardin]

10. Oh, very good!

I haven't seen that yet. I'm a little behind in my reading and still haven't gotten to February, let alone March yet. Other than Michael Shermer's column which is the first thing I read.

[XOKCowboy]

2. I was at a conference of college department heads..

of electrical and computer engineering departments and they were bemoaning lack of emphasis on science and engineering in schools. I was working with a very nice guy who's a depression baby who's put away a goodly amoun thank to his career as an engineer. We got to talking about politics in a frienly manner because he's a Bush supporter for no other reason than he benefits from the Bush tax breaks. During the speech about how America has slipped from prominence in science I leaned over to him and said.. "Aren't ya glad your president wants to teach creationism instead of science in schools", he chuckled and said I probably had him there.

Progress is being made folks. One person at a time. I know this guy's wife votes Democrat so maybe I laid a footstone towards them not cancelling each other out.

[magellan]

5. I like to believe that people who choose science as their career

...are generally rational enough to put their politics in their back pockets when it comes to their work. Of course, we've never had such a divisive administration, so willing to bring out the worst in people. Between the attack on the "elite" science community and the political hoops federally funded researchers are being subjected to, I'm surprised the whole US scientific community hasn't left the country yet.

What I worry most about is the crop of future scientists we're raising. Our kids isn't (sic) learning to love pure science much these days, and those who are truly gifted won't find many jobs waiting for them here if we don't stop the brain and technology drain.

[theHandpuppet]

9. Here's an example of where science and research is headed

This is a perfect example of how to use science and research to further a political agenda:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=30040&mesg_id=30040

[XOKCowboy]

3. I'm off to London Thursday..

to work at an engineering conference. We had to take these conferences overseas because we're guaranteed huge attendance there as opposed to dwindling participation here in the US. Guess who the majority of attendees and speakers will be. Asians and Indians. In their cultures a good education means a good life. They have strong religions in their countries but they don't let them interfere with solid math and science.

America used to be a strong, proud land. It could be again.

[magellan]

6. It's a shame

I think there's a complacency at work here. The US has been a leader in most areas of science for so long, and we've all certainly reaped the benefits. Now this administration has given Americans an excuse to ignore science at every level just as free trade is really kicking in...and it's going to kick us in the teeth.

I wonder how many people would really rather undergo faith healing than have cutting edge medical care available to them when they get seriously ill? Because with the jobs and the professionals will go the technology.

Maybe it'll have to come to that before this country wakes up to the importance of good science at home.

[LisaLynne]

13. We were in a similar situation years ago and then ...

Russia made it into space. Suddenly, science and education were priorities again.

[salin]

15. and bush's solution?

A couple million for a prize to send people commercially to the Moon - and attempts to privatize NASA's work. Yikes.

[northofdenali]

7. An excellent addition to anyone wanting more info

is "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney. Just finished it today, and it's a real eye-opener. From the jacket:

"In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney ties together the disparate strands of the attack on science into a compelling and frightening account of our government's increasing preference for ideologically driven pseudoscience over legitimate research."

[beam me up scottie]

8. Kicked and recommended

When they're finished, can the damage be righted?

Will they ever be finished?

[salvorhardin]

11. Depends on what you mean by finished.

If you mean that another Republican administration follows the Bush administration then I really do fear for where we're headed as a country and where the far right Republicans envision the finish line.

On the other hand, if you mean after the Bush administration is thrown out in 2008, then I think things can be repaired. One of the neat things about our society is that it is firmly routed in modernism and it's surprisingly elastic. Often times it gets stretched, seemingly to the breaking point, but so far it has always snapped back.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Does Bush know the story of Trofim Lysenko?

That's the obvious parallel of what happens when scientists are screened for political views that conform to the ruling regime's preferences. Bad for science, bad for scientists, bad for the country, bad for the world, if it happens in a important country, whether the Soviet Union or the USA.

Lamarckism is favored by those who see will as the primary driving force of life, e.g., the 20th century French philosopher Henri Bergson. Evolution is hated by many of those who believe God created everything and everything has a purpose: the fundamentalist teleologists of the world. One might think that Marxists would prefer Darwin's theory of evolution with its mechanical, materialistic, deterministic, non-purposive concept of natural selection. Lamarckism looks like it might be preferred by free market advocates with their emphasis on will, effort, hard work and choice. But then Russia and the Soviet Union weren't really Marxists. They turned the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the professional dictator (Lenin, then Stalin). And even with the death of Stalin, the dictatorship of the communist party leaders who controlled everything, including the economy, took over.

In any case, Michurin's views on evolution found favor with the party leadership in the Soviet Union. When the rest of the scientific world were pursuing the ideas of Mendel and developing the new science of genetics, Russia led the way in the effort to prevent the new science from being developed in the Soviet Union. Thus, while the rest of the scientific world could not conceive of understanding evolution without genetics, the Soviet Union used its political power to make sure that none of their scientists would advocate a genetic role in evolution.

It was due to Lysenko's efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as "reactionary and decadent" and declared such thinkers to be "enemies of the Soviet people" (Gardner 1957). He also announced that his speech had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Scientists either groveled, writing public letters confessing the errors of their way and the righteousness of the wisdom of the Party, or they were dismissed. Some were sent to labor camps. Some were never heard from again.

Under Lysenko's guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was practiced in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the service of ideology. The results were predictable: the steady deterioration of Soviet biology. Lysenko's methods were not condemned by the Soviet scientific community until 1965, more than a decade after Stalin's death.

http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html

There are enough parallels between Bush and Stalin to fill books - it's a better analogy than certain other WW2 dictators, IMHO. They have both taken an ideology, used it in ways that many 'true believers' think awful, removed those who question them from power, have taken advantage of an attack to paint their country as the complete victim, despite earlier military collaboration with their attacker, and themselves as the glorious war leader (but whose own competance looks distinctly dodgy), and they have both shown a complete lack of sympathy to the suffering of their own people - whether in Ukraine or New Orleans.

And now we see how much Bush demands that science support his views, not objective research.

[LisaLynne]

14. I work with a lot of scientists and ...

even the elderly, staunchly Republican former head of the lab was complaining to me about this administration's stance on science. That's really something for him. He was absolutely livid when he talked about it.

[freethought]

16. I believe that the anti-Science attitude of * is also something

Personal with Bush himself. I have no evidence to offer, this is just pure speculation on my part based on what I have observed about Un-Curious George.
I believe * has a personal grudge against scientists, probably based on his evangelical beliefs and his own faults.
When * was at Yale he must have had some contact with those that were seeking education in the sciences and engineering. This must have been the same after his dad bribed the guy into Harvard Business School. I would find it hard to believe that he didn't have at least some contact with people seeking higher degrees in physics, biological sciences, engineering, medical sciences, just to name a few.
Scientists are people who are trained an educated to wrap there heads around complex ideas, some of them do it with surprising ease and do so with ideas an concepts that would blow the minds of most of us. These people think on a level that Bush clearly does not and likely cannot. I will bet anything that really chaps his ass. He's born into a sort of American royalty, which he believes makes him automatic ly smarter than everyone else. But at Yale and Harvard he's "C' Student at best while there are others from more modest families who can run circles around him intellectually and academically. Hey he's president now, and can now show those "science types" who's boss.

Also, consider this. Un-Curious George is a living example of how merit has stood for almost nothing in his march through life. If his name wasn't Bush he would probably be living in a trailer park somewhere. He did not get in Yale or Harvard on his merits, both times it was family connections. There are two people out there who were bumped from Yale undergrad and Harvard Business School who were likely more deserving and were likely smarter. His business career is a string of failures and bailouts. Where he did make some financial success it was often at the expense of others. When he dumped his stock for Harken Energy he left his followers in the lurch. When he became partners with the Texas Rangers, he built a stadium by taking someone else's property. All part of his Reverse-Robin Hood mentality-"steel from the poor give to the rich".

Scientists can be many things. They can be snooty and egomaniacs. One thing that cannot be discounted is what those who have higher degrees in the Sciences have had to work pretty hard to get them. Using their merits, hard work, perseverance, and discipline to achieve a goal. And let's also not forget that these days if you are pursuing a PhD in science one is also likely accumulating a great deal of personal debt. And the struggle does not end there one, then has to make a living, find teaching or research positions or get your work published so your name gets out there and one can build a reputation. Does anyone see Un-Curious George doing it this way? Obviously not!
He is simply not capable. And he knows it. I believe he resents them for it.

For that you cannot understand you will attack and criticize.

Like I said, it is just an opinion.