The panels in question were scientific assessment panels. They are supposed to be apolitical and make judgements based on the scientific evidence, not on ideology. For instance one appointment to an National Cancer Institute investigatory panel had no credentials as a scientist. Moreover the NIH web site in question stated that there was a significant link between breast cancer and abortion. The actual report on which that site was based on said there was NO reliable evidence that showed any connection. Secondly in the EPA report mentioned, all references to research that showed global warming was removed, and replaced with a phrase that said that said that there was mixed evidence on that issue, over the objections of the scientists involved in the report. Moreover it was not the EPA that made those changes, but the Whitehouse.
Now lets take the example given of Shrub's appointments to the AIDS panel. this panel is constituted to give neutral and accurate advise to the whitehouse on the AIDS crisis. Someone who says publicly and repeatedly that homosexuality is a "deathstyle" and AIDS as a "gay plague" is not exactly being neutral now is he? See the difference, they are injecting politics into areas where they should not be, and that previous administrations, including Ronnie Raygun's administration, avoiding doing such. Indeed the Reagan administration was applauded numerous times for actually listening to these panels, even though their conclusions were against Reagan's personal political ideology, his statements regarding acid rain being caused solely by forest fires and burning ducks excepted. larry >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
