David Frumkin of the Washington Post also had an interesting commentary about this issue: http://www.antiwrap.com/?872 Bush v. Science
By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Monday, February 6, 2006; 1:10 PM President Bush is talking a lot about science these days. He just doesn't have much interest in listening to scientists. Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "Finally there may be an answer to the question of why President Bush spends so much time clearing brush at his Texas ranch. "Maybe he's collecting it to fuel his next truck. . . . "The president's fascination with the gee-whiz breakthroughs of modern science may not be new, but it has certainly been more evident in the days since he made unleashing the power of research and innovation a central element of his State of the Union address." But Bush's relationship to science can be illustrated by the fact that he is speaking rapturously of producing ethanol from (of all things) switch grass -- but not saying a word about what many scientists say may be the greatest disaster facing humankind: global climate change. A Time magazine cover story today shines a spotlight on Bush's relationship of convenience with science. Mark Thompson and Karen Tumulty write that "growing numbers of researchers, both in and out of government, say their findings -- on pollution, climate change, reproductive health, stem-cell research and other areas in which science often finds itself at odds with religious, ideological or corporate interests -- are being discounted, distorted or quashed by Bush Administration appointees. "White House officials don't see that pattern of interference. 'This Administration has been very supportive of science,' Bush's science adviser and respected physicist John Marburger told Time. 'The President wants us to do it right, and doesn't want us to do things that contradict the laws of nature.' But in the past two years, the Union of Concerned Scientists has collected the signatures of more than 8,000 scientists -- including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients and 171 members of the National Academies -- who accuse the Administration of an unprecedented level of political intrusion into their world. 'There have always been isolated incidents where people have played politics with science,' says Francesca Grifo, director of the group's Scientific Integrity Program. 'What's new is its pervasive and systemic nature. We get calls every week from federal scientists reporting stuff to us.' "Rarely, however, are they willing to put their jobs and their research grants at risk by going public with their complaints. That's why it was so remarkable when one of the government's leading experts on climate change, 29-year NASA veteran James Hansen, who is director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, charged on the front page of the New York Times that he has been muzzled by the agency. He accused the agency of demanding to review his lectures, papers and postings to the NASA website, as well as screen his media interviews." Andrew C. Revken followed up on that story in the New York Times on Saturday, writing: "A week after NASA's top climate scientist complained that the space agency's public-affairs office was trying to silence his statements on global warming, the agency's administrator, Michael D. Griffin, issued a sharply worded statement yesterday calling for 'scientific openness' throughout the agency. " 'It is not the job of public-affairs officers,' Dr. Griffin wrote in an e-mail message to the agency's 19,000 employees, 'to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff.' " Revken called attention to yet another example of political interference by George Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose resume says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Deutsch "told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word 'theory' after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times. . . . "The Big Bang is 'not proven fact; it is opinion,' Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, 'It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.' " Daniel Smith wrote in the New York Times Magazine in September about the growing sense in the scientific community that science is being misused by the White House. Tom Toles cartoonified on Bush's approach to science last Thursday. Ron Hutcheson wrote for Knight Ridder Newspapers last August when "President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and 'intelligent design' Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life." Sebastian Mallaby wrote in a Washington Post opinion column last October: "The flip side of Bush cronyism is hostility toward experts -- toward people who care about what's what rather than who's who." The Rise of Switch Grass Rick Montgomery writes in the Kansas City Star: "Heretofore, the inglorious history of switch grass has mostly been about plowing it away or using it as a whip. . . . "Now, no less of an authority than the U.S. president is pointing to switch grass as a potential miracle crop in the battle to free America from its addiction to foreign oil. "Researchers already know how to convert cellulose from switch grass -- or wood chips, corn stalks, wheat straw, old newspapers -- into sugars used in making ethanol. The challenge is doing it cheaply. And until cellulose ethanol becomes cheap enough to compete with corn-based ethanol, experts say, the market value of switch grass will remain this side of worthless." Garry Mitchell writes for the Associated Press: "In his call for greater use of alternative fuels, President Bush mentioned switchgrass as a possible source in the coming decades, but the idea may need a jump-start. A switchgrass researcher at Auburn University said federal policy-makers have delayed its commercial use by waiting for private industry to fund it. " 'Industry won't fund it, because there's too much risk involved,' said David Bransby, a professor and switchgrass researcher at Auburn's College of Agriculture." Melissa Block interviewed Bransby on NPR and found out that politics played a role in Bush's mention of switch grass. "BLOCK: Do you have any idea how switch grass made it into the State of the Union? What lobby or interest group was putting it in there? "Dr. BRANSBY: Well, our Senator Sessions from Alabama. Block later explained: "Jeff Sessions's press secretary told us the Alabama Senator had indeed sung the praises of switch grass last Friday in a meeting with Al Hubbard, an economic advisor to the president." Here's more information , including pictures, about switch grass. Jonathan Guthrie writes in the Financial Times: "Switchgrass is the botanical marvel Mr Bush has dragged from obscurity to propose as a source of bioethanol powering a US free from extortion by oil sheikhs and threats from mullahs. Has the Kyoto protocol refusenik and doubter of global warming suddenly gone a funny shade of green? Perhaps, but in a distinctively Republican way. "If switchgrass was a person not a plant, it would drive a truck with an National Rifle Association bumper sticker and whitetail buck strapped across the hood. Panicum virgatum is a tall-growing, clumping grass, whose flower-heads once undulated like an inland sea across vast expanses of prairie. It grows where honest, God-fearing folks live, far from coastal Democratic enclaves." Energy Policy Watch Ronald Brownstein writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Let's say the energy bills in your house are too high. One response might be to start saving for a new, more efficient house you could afford in 10 or 20 years. "Or you could replace the windows and improve the insulation today. "President Bush, in the energy plan he announced in his State of the Union speech last week, chose the first strategy. Bush promised more federal energy research, primarily into technologies that might reduce America's fossil fuel dependence years from now. But he rejected the common-sense measures that could bring immediate improvements and maximize the long-term benefits of the new research." On 2/7/06, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you look at the record of this administration that's not a stretch. > Time Magazine puts it even more bluntly: > http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156577,00.html > > The Political Science Test > Bush said science would guide his decisions, but those in the lab see > ideology intruding on their work > By MARK THOMPSON, KAREN TUMULTY > > The 3 1/2-hr. conference call brought together nearly two dozen of > the nation's best minds on the subject of air quality--and many of > them were steamed. As the scientists of the Environmental Protection > Agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, they are rarely > overruled on their recommendations about how the government should > react to the latest and best research on the dangers of dirty air. > Seven months ago, they warned the EPA in a letter that unless it made > at least modest reductions in the amount of airborne soot, thousands > of Americans would die prematurely each year. But last December, EPA > Administrator Stephen Johnson, citing "the best available science," > ignored their counsel. On the phone call last week, an exasperated Dr. > James Crapo, professor of medicine at Denver's National Jewish Medical > and Research Center, told his fellow scientists, "We need to write > another letter and this time take a stronger stand." > > Starting when he was a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush > has often assured voters that his policymaking would be guided by > "sound science." Last week, in his State of the Union address, the > President pointed to scientific research as the way to "lead the world > in opportunity and innovation for decades to come." Yet growing > numbers of researchers, both in and out of government, say their > findings--on pollution, climate change, reproductive health, stem-cell > research and other areas in which science often finds itself at odds > with religious, ideological or corporate interests--are being > discounted, distorted or quashed by Bush Administration appointees. > > White House officials don't see that pattern of interference. "This > Administration has been very supportive of science," Bush's science > adviser and respected physicist John Marburger told TIME. "The > President wants us to do it right, and doesn't want us to do things > that contradict the laws of nature." But in the past two years, the > Union of Concerned Scientists has collected the signatures of more > than 8,000 scientists--including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal > of Science recipients and 171 members of the National Academies--who > accuse the Administration of an unprecedented level of political > intrusion into their world. "There have always been isolated incidents > where people have played politics with science," says Francesca Grifo, > director of the group's Scientific Integrity Program. "What's new is > its pervasive and systemic nature. We get calls every week from > federal scientists reporting stuff to us." > > Rarely, however, are they willing to put their jobs and their research > grants at risk by going public with their complaints. That's why it > was so remarkable when one of the government's leading experts on > climate change, 29-year NASA veteran James Hansen, who is director of > the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, charged on the front page of > the New York Times that he has been muzzled by the agency. He accused > the agency of demanding to review his lectures, papers and postings to > the NASA website, as well as screen his media interviews. > > So respected is Hansen that he has been invited to brief Vice > President Dick Cheney. The White House wanted to hear Hansen's > findings that supported its view that there are easier and cheaper > steps toward controlling global warming--reducing vehicle soot and > methane emissions, for instance--than curbing carbon dioxide, which by > some estimates would cost the energy industry $100 billion or more. > But Hansen's more recent research suggesting that global warming is > accelerating, and that time is running out to find a solution, was > less favorably received, he told TIME. "It just became so clear to me > that they were interested in those things that they were doing anyhow, > but they were not willing to consider the changes that would be needed > to reduce the most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, in the > near term." > > NASA officials have denied that Hansen was silenced, and insist > public-affairs officers routinely review interview requests. Hansen > himself has not stayed outside the realm of politics, having announced > in a 2004 speech at the University of Iowa that he planned to vote for > John Kerry. Still, his scientific reputation is solid enough that > Sherwood Boehlert, Republican chairman of the House Science Committee, > wrote NASA Administrator Michael Griffin last week to demand an > explanation and make clear that "good science cannot long persist in > an atmosphere of intimidation ... NASA is clearly doing something > wrong, given the sense of intimidation by Dr. Hansen and others who > work with him." By the end of the week, Griffin had e-mailed the > agency's 19,000 employees, saying public-affairs officers should not > "alter, filter or adjust" the work of NASA scientists. > > Boehlert does not see a larger problem of Administration meddling and > suggests that Hansen probably fell victim to an overzealous, > middle-level bureaucrat. "I don't for a moment think that the > Administration is dictating from the White House some policy directed > to silence distinguished scientists like Dr. Hansen," he says. And he > noted that politics and science have never had an easy, hands-off > relationship in Washington. "This is a town where people like to say > they're for science-based decision making, until the scientific > consensus leads to a politically inconvenient conclusion. Then they > want to go to Plan B," he says. "That's seamless from one > Administration to another; I don't care if it's a Republican or a > Democrat." > > Some who have experienced it from the inside, however, disagree. Dr. > Gerald Keusch, former director of the Fogarty International Center at > the National Institutes of Health (NIH), says he saw a marked change > in its operations as the government moved from the Clinton to the Bush > administrations. Under Clinton, Keusch says, he never encountered > resistance in appointing experts to the advisory board that conducted > peer reviews of grant proposals to the center, which focuses on > international health issues, particularly in developing countries. He > made seven nominations, and all were approved by the Department of > Health and Human Services (HHS) within three weeks. Under Bush, his > first four nominations were quickly endorsed by NIH but then, says > Keusch, "it's 10 months before I hear from HHS, rejecting three of the > four, including a Nobel laureate, with no reasons given." In return, > HHS sent him the rÃ(c)sumÃ(c)s of other people, many of whom had no > expertise in infectious diseases or developing countries. Over the > next three years, Keusch recalls, he had to nominate 26 people to fill > seven vacancies and "came close to having a very dysfunctional > advisory committee. I couldn't get a quorum anymore." > > Keusch, now associate dean for global health at Boston University's > School of Public Health, says ultimately he couldn't take the > "disdainful and disparaging" way in which he was treated--and adds > that he is not the only one. "People who have done extremely well in > their positions have left because they're being disregarded," he says. > But others, like Hansen, say that hostility is all the more reason to > stay and speak out about what they are convinced are growing dangers > to the world's health and environment. "I don't want my grandchildren > in the future to say, 'He understood what was going to happen, but he > didn't explain it to the people,'" Hansen says. "So I'm going to try > to explain that story." > With reporting by With reporting by Matthew Cooper/ Washington, > Christine Gorman/ New York > > > Copyright (c) 2006 Time Inc. All rights reserved. > > > On 2/7/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not only on an individual level are there risks, but at an administrative > > level as well i'd imagine. These political hacks hold the keys to the > > agency's funding, do they not? > > > > "Hey, quit doing real science or we'll cut your money". I doubt it's a > > stretch to imagine this administration doing just that. > > > -- Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion. Edmond Burke ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:196167 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
