Exactly. Jim Davis
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 3:58 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Report details Bush's misuse of scientific research > > Like when Clinton's CDC appointee got canned for making up false firearms > research? > > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 1:46 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Report details Bush's misuse of scientific research > > > While I agree with this completely it seems to me just another example > of the blatancy of this administration. > > Others may indeed have found scientists leaning, politically, in their > direction (it's done all the time). Science itself may be unbiased, but > scientists are far from it and can be just as petty, self-serving, or > just plain stupid as anybody else. > > There was no attempt even for that level of political finesse in many of > these cases. Scientific advisory panels were populated with industry > lobbyists and career politicians. > > This is just another example, along with other appointments, false > statements and questionable contracts given, of this administration's > blatant self-service. There's no finesse to its politics, no sense of > competency or selflessness. It seems nothing more than a bully that's > made it to the top of hill and is now pulling up its cronies. > > Jim Davis > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 10:33 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Report details Bush's misuse of scientific research > > > > 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
