Scientists Accuse White House

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Scientists Accuse White House
7
Wed, 02-18-2004 - 2:37pm
"The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today..."

February 18, 2004

Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts

By JAMES GLANZ

The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.

The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations.

Together, the two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."

The White House had no immediate comment on the statements.

Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried asserted that what he called "the cavalier attitude toward science" could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.

The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take clear shape, a day after Senator John Kerry won the Wisconsin Democratic primary and solidified his position as President Bush's likely opponent in the fall. The organization's report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare — much longer than originally planned — and had been released as soon as it was ready.

"I don't see it as a partisan issue at all," said Russell Train, who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, and who spoke in the conference call in support of the statement. "If it becomes that way I think it's because the White House chooses to make it a partisan issue," Mr. Train said.



http://nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?hp

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2003
Wed, 02-18-2004 - 10:48pm
i was just about to post that. i work with a lot of scientific and medical experts across the country who feel similar frustration with the white house (and not just this admin, though it's reputedly the worst).
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 02-20-2004 - 10:15am

>"A group of more than 60 top U.S. scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and several science advisers to past Republican presidents, Wednesday accused the Bush administration of manipulating and censoring science for political purposes.


In a 46-page report and an open letter, the scientists accused the administration of "suppressing, distorting or manipulating the work done by scientists at federal agencies" in several cases. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a liberal advocacy group based in Cambridge, Mass., organized the effort, but many of the critics aren't associated with it."<


>""If an administration of whatever political persuasion ignores scientific reality, they do so at great risk to the country," said Stanford University physicist W.H.K. Panofsky, who served on scientific advisory councils in the Eisenhower, Johnson and Carter administrations. "There is no clear understanding in the (Bush) administration that you cannot bend science and technology to policy."


The report charges that administration officials have:


  • Ordered massive changes to a section on global warming in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2003 Report on the Environment. Eventually, the entire section was dropped.


  • Pressed the Centers for Disease Control to end a project called "Programs that Work," which found sex education programs that did not insist only on abstinence were still effective.


  • Replaced a CDC fact sheet on proper condom use with a warning emphasizing condom failure rates.


  • Ignored advice from top Department of Energy nuclear materials experts who cautioned that aluminum tubes being imported by Iraq weren't suitable for use to make nuclear weapons.


  • Established political litmus tests for scientific advisory boards. In one case, public health experts were removed from a CDC lead paint advisory panel and replaced with researchers who had financial ties to the lead industry.


  • Suppressed a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist's finding that potentially harmful bacteria float in the air surrounding large hog farms.


  • Excluded scientists who've received federal grants from regulatory advisory panels while permitting the appointment of scientists from regulated industries.

    "I don't recall it ever being so blatant in the past," said Princeton University physicist Val Fitch, a 1980 Nobel Prize winner who served on a Nixon administration science advisory committee. "It's just time after time after time. The facts have been distorted.""<

    >"The Union of Concerned Scientists denied that it had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take clear shape. Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement said the organization's report had taken a year to prepare, much longer than planned, and was released as soon as it was ready.

    Russell Train, an EPA administrator in the Nixon and Ford administrations who spoke on the protesters' behalf, described the Bush administration's treatment of science and scientists as so "dictatorial" that it was causing good scientists to leave the federal government."<

  • Complete article, see link.........


    http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040219/NEWS/402190453/1039

    cl-Libraone~

     


    Photobucket&nbs

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 04-16-2003
    Fri, 02-20-2004 - 10:27am
    << so "dictatorial" that it was causing good scientists to leave the federal government."< >

    This may be precisely the intent. Cause so much damage that any change is virtually impossible. Imagine how much more can be done in another 4 years.

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-18-2000
    Fri, 02-20-2004 - 10:57am

    >"Imagine how much more can be done in another 4 years."<

     


    Photobucket&nbs

    Avatar for car_al
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-25-2003
    Mon, 02-23-2004 - 3:59am
    It looks as though the scientists’ charges may have had a positive effect.

    C

    Taking Spin Out of Report That Made Bad Into Good Health

    By ROBERT PEAR

    February 22, 2004

    WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — The Bush administration says it improperly altered a report documenting large racial and ethnic disparities in health care, but it will soon publish the full, unexpurgated document.

    "There was a mistake made," Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, told Congress last week. "It's going to be rectified."

    Mr. Thompson said that "some individuals took it upon themselves" to make the report sound more positive than was justified by the data.

    The reversal comes in response to concerns of Democrats and the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee. They are pushing separate bills to improve care for members of minorities.

    "African-Americans and Native Americans die younger than any other racial or ethnic group," Dr. Frist said. "African-Americans, Native Americans and Hispanic Americans are at least twice as likely to suffer from diabetes and experience serious complications. These gaps are unacceptable."

    President Bush's budget would cut spending for the training of health professionals and would eliminate a $34 million program that recruits blacks and Hispanics for careers as doctors, nurses and pharmacists.

    On Wednesday, more than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement criticizing what they described as the misuse of science by the administration to bolster its policies on the environment, arms control and public health.

    Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, said the changes in the report on health disparities were "another example of the administration's manipulation of science to fit its political goals."

    But William A. Pierce, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the changes had occurred as part of a "routine review process" and were not intended to minimize the problem.

    The report, the first of its kind, was prepared under a 1999 law that requires officials to issue such reports every year.

    The theme of the original report was that members of minorities "tend to be in poorer health than other Americans" and that "disparities are pervasive in our health care system," contributing to higher rates of disease and disability.

    By contrast, the final report has an upbeat tone, beginning, "The overall health of Americans has improved dramatically over the last century."

    The report was prepared by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, led by Dr. Carolyn M. Clancy. Administration officials said that she and her researchers had fought hard, at some professional risk, to protect the integrity of the report, but eventually went along with the revisions.

    "No data or statistics in the report were altered in any way whatsoever," Dr. Clancy said. But a close reading of the evolving report shows that some entries in statistical tables were deleted from the final version.

    The final report acknowledges that "some socioeconomic, racial, ethnic and geographic differences exist." It says, "There is no implication that these differences result in adverse health outcomes or imply moral error or prejudice in any way."

    But Dr. Alan R. Nelson, a former president of the American Medical Association, said a large body of evidence suggested that "unconscious biases and stereotypes among physicians and nurses may play a role in causing racial and ethnic disparities." Dr. Nelson led a study of the issue by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Prof. M. Gregg Bloche of Georgetown University, a member of the committee, said: "The administration's report does not fabricate data, but misrepresents the findings. It submerges evidence of profound disparities in an optimistic message about the overall excellence of the health care system."

    Dr. Sally L. Satel, a psychiatrist and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that agreeing to issue the original report, "Secretary Thompson succumbed to political pressure that was applied by members of Congress who are identified with ethnic causes." Critics, she said, have grossly exaggerated the significance of changes in the report.

    Among those who wanted to rewrite the report was Arthur J. Lawrence, a deputy assistant secretary of health and human services.

    "The present draft remains highly focused on the health care system's supposed failings and flaws," Mr. Lawrence said in a memorandum to Mr. Thompson last fall. "In short, the report lacks balance."

    Mr. Lawrence said that geography, income and other factors could be more important than race. For example, he said, whites in rural northern Maine may have worse heart problems than blacks in big cities. In addition, he said, the report should place more emphasis on "personal responsibility for one's own health status" and on "problems with the medical malpractice system."

    The original version of the report included these statements, which were dropped from the final version:

    ¶"We aspire to equality of opportunities for all our citizens. Persistent disparities in health care are inconsistent with our core values."

    ¶"Disparities come at a personal and societal price."

    ¶"Compared with whites, blacks experience longer waits in emergency departments and are more likely to leave without being seen."

    ¶When hospitalized for heart attacks, "Hispanics are less likely to receive optimal care."

    The original report included a stark, prominent statement that "black children have much higher hospitalization rates for asthma than white children." The final version included the data, without comment.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/politics/22HEAL.html

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-18-2000
    Mon, 02-23-2004 - 9:02am

    Lies by omission.


    >"President Bush's budget would cut spending for the training of health professionals and would eliminate a $34 million program that recruits blacks and Hispanics for careers as doctors, nurses and pharmacists."<


    With a critical shortage in many hospitals of experienced staff cutting this from budget doesn't make sense, IMO.

     


    Photobucket&nbs

    Avatar for car_al
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-25-2003
    Tue, 02-24-2004 - 4:49am
    ITA. C