[AAACE-NLA] : [rsct] Fwd: White House 'Science Policy' -- the New Lysenkoism

Sat May 8 14:10:27 EDT 2004

Perhaps the following forwarded message helps to put the Bush
administration emphasis on scientific-based educational reform in some
perspective.

Essay question:  To what extent can science be divorced from politics in
the manner of deciding on policy issues

George Demetrion

Begin forwarded message:

> From: moderator at portside.org
> Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004  8:25:03  PM US/Pacific
> To: portside at lists.portside.org
> Subject: White House 'Science Policy' -- the New Lysenkoism
> Reply-To: portside at portside.org
>
> [See the related editorial, Bush-League Lysenkoism --
> The White House bends science to its will
> <http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=0001E02A-A14A- 
> 1084-983483414B7F0000>
>  -- moderator]
>
> <http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=0000FF81-A7DD- 
> 1084-A73E83414B7F0000&chanID=sa006>
>
> Scientific American
> May 2004 issue
>
> Science's Political Bulldog
>
>      Representative Henry A. Waxman blasts away at the
>      White House for alleged abuse of science. Sure,
>      it's politics--but it could restore confidence in
>      the scientific process
>
> By Julie Wakefield
>
> To hear Henry A. Waxman bemoan how predetermined beliefs
> are jeopardizing scientific freedom, you might think you
> are in another age or in some struggling new country.
> But there, outside his corner office, is the gleaming
> dome of the Capitol, its perimeter tightened with
> bollards and the latest surveillance. "Science is very
> much under attack with the Bush administration," Waxman
> declares from his suite in the Rayburn Office Building.
> "If the science doesn't fit what the White House wants
> it to be, it distorts the science to fit into what its
> preconceived notions are about what it wants to do."
>
> As the ranking minority member on the House Government
> Reform Committee, the 64-year-old California Democrat
> has become a leading voice railing against the White
> House's science policy--or lack thereof. The charges are
> not new--word of such politicization began percolating
> almost as soon as George W. Bush took office, and until
> recently, many scientists who complained in private held
> their tongues in public. Waxman has given scientists'
> fears a voice, and a growing crowd of scientific
> organizations, advocacy groups and former officials are
> adding to the chorus.
>
> Waxman launched his first formal salvo last August.
> Pulling together reports and editorials from various
> sources (including Scientific American), his office
> issued a report detailing political interference in more
> than 20 areas affecting health, environmental and other
> research agencies. Examples include deleting information
> from Web sites, stacking advisory committees with
> candidates with uncertain qualifications and
> questionable industry ties, and suppressing information
> and projects inconvenient to White House policy goals,
> such as those having to do with global warming. And he
> charges that the beneficiaries of these distortions are
> for the most part Bush's political supporters, including
> the Traditional Values Coalition, a church-based policy
> group in Washington, D.C., and oil lobbyists.
>
> To Waxman, who became interested in health issues in
> 1969 when he was appointed to the California State
> Assembly Health Committee, the assaults on the National
> Institutes of Health are especially offensive. For
> example, after prompting by Republican members of
> Congress, NIH officials started contacting a "hit list"
> of 150 investigators compiled by the Traditional Values
> Coalition. The organization charged that the NIH was
> funding smarmy sex studies and denounced the projects
> that look at such behaviors as truck-stop prostitution
> and the sexual habits of seniors.
>
> Although no grants were rescinded, many viewed the calls
> as an attempt to stifle the scientific process,
> considering that all 200 of the grants in question had
> already undergone peer review. At the University of
> California at San Francisco, where about 17
> investigators were contacted, the message was clear:
> "Look out: Big Brother is watching," recounts Keith R.
> Yamamoto, executive vice dean at the medical school.
>
> "I just think we need to make sure the jewel of U.S.
> government policy--the NIH, which I think is a national
> treasure--not be hurt in any way by those who would try
> to inject politics into scientific research," Waxman
> states. NIH officials declined to comment for this
> story. But in a previous interview, NIH director Elias
> A. Zerhouni stated that he has not seen many solid cases
> of political interference and invited researchers who
> encountered such pressure to come forward [see "A
> Biomedical Politician," by Carol Ezzell, Insights,
> September 2003].
>
> Beyond grants, scientific publishing also seems to be
> under fire. The Office of Foreign Assets Control, part
> of the U.S. Treasury, has pressured professional
> organizations--such as the American Society for
> Microbiology and the Institute of Electrical and
> Electronics Engineers--to virtually ban papers
> originating in Iran, Cuba, Sudan and Libya. The
> rationale: the ban is part of the U.S. trade embargo
> policy with these countries. Publishing their papers
> requires special licenses.
>
> Perhaps more contentious is the Office of Management and
> Budget's proposal to centrally peer-review the science
> behind new federal regulations. The plan, which could be
> implemented by the summer, is a way to "enhance the
> competence and credibility of science used by
> regulators," according to John D. Graham, an OMB
> administrator. For example, "the lack of adequate peer
> review contributed to childhood deaths due to passenger
> air bag deployment," Graham says--specifically, federal
> agencies failed to consider risk assessments performed
> by automakers indicating that kids seated in cars with
> passenger air bags need to be restrained properly in the
> back seat.
>
> Critics such as Waxman see it differently. They call the
> proposal an insidious way to use scientific uncertainty
> to stall regulations that are likely to be costly to
> industry by adding layers of review--and by including
> potentially biased ones. "It's very heavy-handed of the
> OMB to come in and regulate peer review," Waxman
> charges. Moreover, he adds, the OMB's notion of the
> process has fallen short in the recent past. In the
> debate over the environment, the Bush administration has
> quashed findings that run counter to policy decisions.
> And its actions extend beyond its rejection of the Kyoto
> protocol. For example, the White House suppressed for
> several months a 2003 Environmental Protection Agency
> report detailing that a Senate Clean Air bill would
> prevent substantially more deaths from mercury
> contamination than the administration's proposed Clear
> Skies Act.
>
> The Union of Concerned Scientists outlined these and
> other allegations in a report issued this February.
> Along with the report, 62 prominent scientists--
> including Nobel laureates and National Medal of Science
> winners--signed a statement calling for the restoration
> of scientific integrity to federal policymaking.
>
> "The peer-review situation at the OMB is frightening on
> many levels," says Neal Lane, a signatory of the
> statement who headed the National Science Foundation and
> served as presidential science adviser under Bill
> Clinton. "The integrity of information is going to be
> seriously undermined in a process that requires
> political approval." He points out that whereas the
> heads of the NIH and other far-flung agencies are all
> political appointees, the OMB is part of the White
> House.
>
> Although science has historically been political to some
> degree, "it's unprecedented what we're now seeing,"
> Waxman contends. "We've had people from the Nixon
> administration, Republicans who served in the EPA"--
> Russell E. Train and William D. Ruckelshaus--"decry
> what's being done."
>
> Some scholars remain skeptical about whether science has
> become more political. "When people are seeking
> political advantage, there isn't much that is sacred,"
> observes economist Lester Lave of Carnegie Mellon
> University. "Since scientists enjoy a positive
> reputation with the public, members of Congress and
> other decision makers, there is some attempt to line up
> Nobel Prize winners, professional society presidents or
> large numbers of university people to support or oppose
> a position. There is nothing new here." And even Lane
> notes a considerable amount of "polemic" mixed with the
> concrete cases of interference outlined in Waxman's
> August report.
>
> Bush administration officials have countered that Waxman
> himself is using scientists' concerns for his own
> political gain. "He's just playing politics by
> continuing to attack the president's policies. He's not
> offering constructive ways to enhance science policy,"
> says Mary Ellen Grant, a spokesperson for the Republican
> National Committee.
>
> Waxman is undeterred. As he did in many of his past
> reform campaigns, he established a "tipline" for
> scientists to register additional examples of
> politicization. But he has not been able to round up
> support for congressional hearings as he did against the
> tobacco industry in 1994. The Republican congressional
> majority's lack of interest in the issue has frustrated
> him. Still, he hopes to effect change: "It should be
> enough to bring it under public scrutiny, because [the
> administration] can't defend those kinds of actions."
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news,
> discussion and debate service of the Committees of
> Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to
> provide varied material of interest to people on the
> left.
>
> For answers to frequently asked questions:
> <http://www.portside.org/faq>
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change settings:
> <http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside>
>
> To submit material, paste into an email and send to:
> <moderator at portside.org> (postings are moderated)
>
> For assistance with your account:
> <support at portside.org>
>
> To donate to portside:
> <http://www.portside.org/donate/index.php>
>
> To search the portside archive:
> <http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/>
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
This is a mailing of the Rethinking Schools critical teaching and writing
listserv. If you would like to subscribe to this listserv send an e-mail
message with the word &quot;subscribe&quot; in the subject field to
RScriticalteach-request at lists.execpc.com. The list is open to all
Rethinking Schools subscribers and focuses on teaching and writing for
justice in K-12 classrooms. 

To unsubscribe send an email message with the word
&quot;unsubscribe&quot; in the subject field to
RScriticalteach-request at lists.execpc.com.

Check out Rethinking Schools Online at www.rethinkingschools.org.
_________________________________________
______
rscriticalteach mailing list
rscriticalteach at lists.core.com
https://lists.core.com/mailman/listinfo/rscriticalteach

--------- End forwarded message ----------

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!