Ok, Let me understand this. The executive branch gets to make appointments to certain panels, and you expect them not to take politics into consideration?
Don't be naive. Left and right do this whenever they can. Obviously if you have an agenda your going to make sure that you don't put people that are diametrically apposed to it into positions where they can harm you. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 9:16 AM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Report details Bush's misuse of scientific research >Hay. Just what is your problem? Who the heck would argue that condoms >aren't effective against those little missile's hitting their target :-)) Have you read the article? Have you any understanding of the need for honesty in scientific reporting. It can be a life or death matter in some cases. The problem is that by distorting the research to fit their agenda does a disservice to scientific research, public health, medicine and environmental health to name a few. Another example, missile defense. IF they fudged the data to show that it works, what happens when we are subjected to an attack and our much vaunted missile defenses fail miserably. Are you willing to care for all the people who are going to be dying of cancer in a few years because of these distortions. The only events I think that is comparable are Stalin's support of Lamarkian genetics in the 1930's - that resulted in the death of tens of thousands in Russia and the Ukraine. Or the more recent support of a crackpot AIDS theory by Tambo Mbeke, president of South Africa. That support may have resulted in hundreds or thousands of needless deaths by AIDS related illnesses In this case I do not care whether the administration is liberal conservative or just confused, lying and distorting scientific research is well beyond the pale. Its an assault on science in general. When the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, Nature and science criticize the government over this you know something is wrong. The Lancet and the NEJM are not exactly what you would call a hotbed of liberalism. To quote from the article: "the editors of the Lancet noted "growing evidence of explicit vetting of appointees to influential [scientific] panels on the basis of their political or religious opinions" and warned against "any further right-wing incursions" on those panels. " And you're saying there is nothing wrong with this? If your view is typical of the pro-Shrub people that is really scary -- Larry C. Lyons ======================================================== Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts. ======================================================== Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
