Scientists feel stifled by Bush administration

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/21/bush.science.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration, with fewer scientists heard in policy discussions and money for research and advanced training being cut, according to panelists at a national science meeting.

Speakers at the national meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science expressed concern Sunday that some scientists in key federal agencies are being ignored or even pressured to change study conclusions that don't support policy positions.

The speakers also said that Bush's proposed 2005 federal budget is slashing spending for basic research and reducing investments in education designed to produce the nation's future scientists.

And there also was concern that increased restrictions and requirements for obtaining visas is diminishing the flow to the U.S. of foreign-born science students who have long been a major part of the American research community.

Rosina Bierbaum, dean of the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, said the Bush administration has cut scientists out of some of the policy-making processes, particularly on environmental issues.

"In previous administrations, scientists were always at the table when regulations were being developed," she said. "Science never had the last voice, but it had a voice."

Issues on global warming, for instance, that achieved a firm scientific consensus in earlier years are now being questioned by Bush policy makers. Proven, widely accepted research is being ignored or disputed, she said.

Government policy papers issued prior to the Bush years moved beyond questioning the validity of global warming science and addressed ways of confronting or dealing with climate change.

Under Bush, said Bierbaum, the questioning of the proven science has become more important than finding ways to cope with climate change.

One result of such actions, said Neal Lane of Rice University, a former director of the National Science Foundation, is that "we don't really have a policy right now to deal with what everybody agrees is a serious problem."

Among scientists, said Lane, "there is quite a consensus in place that the Earth is warming and that humans are responsible for a considerable part of that" through the burning of fossil fuels.

And the science is clear, he said, that without action to control fossil fuel use, the warming will get worse and there will be climate events that "our species has not experienced before."

Asked for comment, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said, "The president makes policy decisions based on what the best policies for the country are, not politics. People who suggest otherwise are ill-informed."

Kurt Gottfried of Cornell University and the Union of Concerned Scientists said a survey of scientists in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that about 42 percent said they felt pressured to not report publicly any findings that do not agree with Bush policies on endangered species.

He said almost a third of the Fish and Wildlife researchers said they were even pressured not to express within the agency any views in conflict with the Bush policies.

"This administration has distanced itself from scientific information," said Gottfried. He said this is part of a larger effort to let politics dominate pure science.

He said scientists in the Environmental Protection Agency have been pressured to change their research to keep it consistent with the Bush political position on environmental issues.

Because of such actions, he said, it has become more difficult for federal agencies to attract and retain top scientific talent. This becomes a critical issue, said Gottfried, because about 35 percent of EPA scientists will retire soon and the Bush administration can "mold the staff" of the agency through the hiring process.

Federal spending for research and development is significantly reduced under the proposed 2005 Bush budget, the speakers said.

"Overall the R&D budget is bad news," said Bierbaum.

She said the National Science Foundation funds for graduate students and for kindergarten through high school education has been slashed.

NASA has gotten a budget boost, but most of the new money will be going to the space shuttle, space station and Bush's plan to explore the moon and Mars. What is suffering is the space agency's scientific research efforts, she said.

"Moon and Mars is basically going to eat everybody's lunch," she said.

Lane said Bush's moon and Mars exploration effort has not excited the public and has no clear goals or plans.

He said Bush's moon-Mars initiative "was poorly carried out and the budget is not there to do the job so science (at NASA) will really get hurt."

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kelpdiver 2]

It's equal opportunity - under Clinton certain scientists were listened to, others were ignored. Now all are being ignored.

It's a real shame about NASA- if we can't keep an obvious winner like Hubble up, wtf are we returning the the Moon for? I'm up for Mars, but not at the expense of everything else. If times are lean, it can wait.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

It's equal opportunity - under Clinton certain scientists were listened to, others were ignored. Now all are being ignored.

It's a real shame about NASA- if we can't keep an obvious winner like Hubble up, wtf are we returning the the Moon for? I'm up for Mars, but not at the expense of everything else. If times are lean, it can wait.

I still think that Mars/Moon stuff was biz based. I bet friends of Bush get the contracts to supply NASA with parts.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[unformed 0]

Quote

"The president makes policy decisions based on what the best policies for the country are, not politics. People who suggest otherwise are ill-informed."

ROFLMAO. That's some funny shit.

This ad space for sale.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration...

The facts, from the AAAS web site, without the bullshit anti-Bush spin inserted by CNN: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/

Quote: " the proposed federal R&D portfolio of $132.2 billion would be 0.6 percent or $733 million above this year's funding level"

Gosh, they're going to have to tighten their belt by a whole six-tenths of one percent! Oh the horror!

[tcnelson 1]

it's mass hystaria!! yesterday, while at work at the air force research laboratory, they told us to pack up 'cause they're closing the air force. just kidding... you all know that we get president's day off right?

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[happythoughts 0]

OSTP

The Office of Science and Technology Policy functions within the Exec Office. It was established in 1976 and has been around, with the same function, for years. Sometimes career politicians complain that their pet projects are not getting enough money. I suspect that the funding would not be enough, no matter what the level.

There is a graph that details R&D spending outlays for the next 2 years, compared against previous years. That said, I don't really trust graphs or statistics.

Quote

Congress established OSTP in 1976 with a broad mandate to advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The 1976 Act also authorizes OSTP to lead an interagency effort to develop and to implement sound science and technology policies and budgets and to work with the private sector, state and local governments, the science and higher education communities, and other nations toward this end.

(edited because markup errors caused the whole thing to be underlined and it was ugly)

[Lindsey 0]

I'm still miffed about his cutting funding of stem cell research. I think he's stupid and misinformed.... Glad to have a place for a soap box.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rhys 0]

'the idiots are taking over'

that is the title to a song in the newest NOFX album titled
'the war on errorism' the album is pretty much dedicated to 'bush bashing' and a song you may have seen the video clip to? called 'franko unamerican' is great too you should check it out they talk all about these sort of topics and this post made me think of the song 'the idiots are taking over'

if you arent into punk rock but are interested in politics then just read the lyrics and you'll be suprised with how onto it these 'old' guys are.

NOFX rocks

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration...

The facts, from the AAAS web site, without the bullshit anti-Bush spin inserted by CNN: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/

Quote: " the proposed federal R&D portfolio of $132.2 billion would be 0.6 percent or $733 million above this year's funding level"

Gosh, they're going to have to tighten their belt by a whole six-tenths of one percent! Oh the horror!

You miss the point entirely, and even your quote is misleading, given that HSA and space research get a big boost so all the rest is level or cut.

The main objection is that science is being distorted to comply with administration political positions.

If Bush hadn't mismanaged the economy and his war so badly the deficit would be under control and these cuts wouldn't be needed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Dougiefresh 0]

From the AAAs site:

Quote

The total federal research investment would fall 0.6 percent to $54.8 billion.

JohnRich said:

Quote

Gosh, they're going to have to tighten their belt by a whole six-tenths of one percent! Oh the horror!

Yeah, over 320 million dollars is nothing.

Let's look at the numbers, put this in perspective.

A full time grad student in engineering at the UW-Madison makes $36k/yr. Most grad students are only funded at 33% or 50%, but let's use $36 k.

If all that money were to go solely into paying grad students, arguably the cheapest way to produce large volumes of scientific information, the cuts represent the salaries of ~8800 grad students.

Let's take the opposite end of the spectrum -- a tenured professor. My father, an internationally recognized expert in his field, earns ~$150k/yr. He is nearing the end of a long and distinguished career, and thus represents the high end of the pay spectrum. At this rate, a .6 percent in the national research budget pays the salaries for ~2000 scientific experts. Keep in mind that for a professor to maintain his research credibility he must publish several papers a year, each of which must expand the envelope of knowledge if it is to be published.

By cutting the money flowing to research labs, Bush + Co. is cutting off the potential for intellectual and industrial growth. That is what makes the U.S. strong -- the constant return on our investment. Less research production means slower advancement. The gains that could have been claimed by American scientists, and thus by the American economy, instead go to foreign scientists and foreign economies. There might be a research project hidden away in some cramped research lab right now that will spark a billion-dollar industry. I, for one, do not want that project cut because our elected leader underestimated the value of science -- ALL science, not just the science he wants to hear, and not just the science he thinks is useful.

I realize I've made a complex problem overly simple, but the basic point remains: Bush is not interested in the strength of the U.S. He is not interested in progress. He will not listen to any viewpoint that does not agree with his own. He is not forward-thinking enough to realize that money put into American brain activity repays itself several times over. Instead he dumps the money into Iraq, sacrificing international regard, financial reserves, and let's not forget American lives. And for what return? That remains to be seen, but I'll bet you .6 percent of the national research budget it won't be American jobs, American industrial growth, or stability in the Middle East.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. --Douglas Adams

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/21/bush.science.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The voice of science is being stifled...

Who needs Evolution when there is Genesis?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

If Bush hadn't mismanaged the economy and his war so badly the deficit would be under control and these cuts wouldn't be needed.

What more illustration do we need that the administration should listen to the impartial voice of academe?

[JackC 0]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scientists10feb10,0,4954654.story?coll=la-home-nation

Quote

More than 200 scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been directed to alter official findings to lessen protections for plants and animals, a survey released Wednesday says.

[WrongWay 0]

Yet another example of Bush's war mongering and ignoring every other issue. Great job, Georgey.....I wonder how long it'll take the next guy to clean up your mess.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

without the bullshit anti-Bush spin inserted by CNN: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/

psssst! check the feed line again. It was from the AP, CNN was just passing it on.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[cloudseeker2001 0]

A good friend of mine works for Baylor and she has been to Washington DC 3 times in the last year talking to GWB Inc. and they are very rude to her and her fellow scientist.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The voice of science is being stifled

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/09/obamas-smog-standard-capitulation-enrages-environmentalists/42060/

Why aren't they calling this President "Anti-science?" Here's another president who views somethng else as more important. He's not anti-science, though. Nope. He's just feckless. He's gone corporatist. He's an appeaser.

He's not anti-science.

Could it be that there are competing interests? Yes, the scientific committee unanimously voted for the regulation. Does it mean that this President is "Anti-science?" Or does it mean that as President, he cannot be a one-trick pony?

I am glad to see that the many on the left are criticizing the President. I'm just wondering if they'll call him anti-science.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Perhaps the issue is whether anti-science and anti-environmentalism are endemic to the Obama Administration. Time will tell; but the Bush Admin certainly was. As I've recently pointed out at least twice before, that's the reason why Bush's EPA director, Republican former Governor Christine Whitman, ultimately resigned in disgust.

I don't like this any more than I like the current Admin's about-faces on Guantanamo or some of the more onerous Patriot Act (and that ilk) provisions.

Eh, they're all whores.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The voice of science is being stifled

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/09/obamas-smog-standard-capitulation-enrages-environmentalists/42060/

Why aren't they calling this President "Anti-science?" Here's another president who views somethng else as more important. He's not anti-science, though. Nope. He's just feckless. He's gone corporatist. He's an appeaser.

He's not anti-science.

Could it be that there are competing interests? Yes, the scientific committee unanimously voted for the regulation. Does it mean that this President is "Anti-science?" Or does it mean that as President, he cannot be a one-trick pony?

I am glad to see that the many on the left are criticizing the President. I'm just wondering if they'll call him anti-science.

Its just a pathetic attempt to pander to the right, perhaps he also thinks he can boost the employment numbers a smidge.

It's getting kind of embarrassing.

[lawrocket 3]

I think that it comes down to this, Andy:

The science is established. If you want to do this, then this must be done.

But then other considerations come in. Is everyone who eats meat and dairy "anti-science?" We know that vegetarian diets are healthier - science establishes it. No. It's not a deliberate choice to say, "I disagree with the science on this." Rather, most of us decide that the the pleasure of that Double Double is worth the risk of health.

If lowering low ozone is the number one goal, then this should be done. The decision was made - it isn't our number one goal.

It's policy. And reasonable minds can differ.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dks13827 3]

If you refer to air quality the air outside is fine, I check it daily and it is good. Not joking, either.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I think that it comes down to this, Andy:

The science is established. If you want to do this, then this must be done.

But then other considerations come in. Is everyone who eats meat and dairy "anti-science?" We know that vegetarian diets are healthier - science establishes it. No. It's not a deliberate choice to say, "I disagree with the science on this." Rather, most of us decide that the the pleasure of that Double Double is worth the risk of health.

If lowering low ozone is the number one goal, then this should be done. The decision was made - it isn't our number one goal.

It's policy. And reasonable minds can differ.

Absurd argument, Counselor. Choosing to refrain from breathing is not quite in the same category as choosing to refrain from having a hamburger.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Bush tightened the rules - just not to the extent that many hoped. Obama proposes freezing it until the election is over. A smart move - he won't lose his constituency because the alternative is worse, right? But he'll gain some swing voters with it.

Also - "Choosing to refrain from breathing" is absurd. It seems that people still breathe even with the limits where they are.

My wife is hotter than your wife.