August 31, 2007
Category: General
This is the last post for the Pacific Institute's Integrity of Science blog. We've really enjoyed our time at ScienceBlogs and think this is a great community. To quote a walrus, "You're such a lovely audience, we'd like to take you home with us, we'd love to take you home."
At this time, the Pacific Institute is going to be refocusing its blogging effort to go beyond the work of our Science Integrity program and incorporate all the work we do: from securing safe drinking water in Africa to cleaning up diesel truck traffic in Oakland to making sure that international corporate social responsibility standards are meaningful. Look for a mid-fall release of the new Pacific Institute blog at www.pacinst.org.
We will continue to work to defend science from political and corporate assaults. You can keep abreast of our work on this issue at www.integrityofscience.org.
To keep abreast of all of the Pacific Institute's work, I encourage you to sign up for our e-mail newsletter.
Much thanks to Katherine and everyone at ScienceBlogs and Seed Media for giving us the opportunity to blog here.
Happy trails,
Ian Hart
Editor, Integrity of Science blog
Posted by Ian Hart at 2:41 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
August 14, 2007
Category: Spin
In her Aug. 12 column, "Paralyzing fog of certainty on climate" Debra Saunders asserts many things, including that money flows to climate scientists as well as climate skeptics. No argument there. However, she neglects to distinguish between the quality of research this money funds, asking, "Why not posit that there is such a thing as honest disagreement on the science?" The problem is, much of the disagreement is dishonest, hiding under a veil of science.
Multinational fossil fuel corporations have billions of dollars riding on U.S. inaction on climate change. These corporations are behind a number of analyses that do not hold up to peer review: not because of inherent biases of the peer reviewers, but because the science is junk.
In Saunders's world, however, there is no such thing as junk science. Just honest disagreement.
Defending the integrity of sound science from the attack of propaganda is not a "muzzling of dissent." Rather, it is the mechanism through which this fog of uncertainty will clear, and science will triumph over ideology.
Posted by Ian Hart at 7:29 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
August 7, 2007
Category: White House
Something else is bothering me about yesterday's USA Today article Science vs. politics gets down and dirty. It's the implication that scientists are speaking out because of political bent.
Science policy professor Daniel Sarewitz of Arizona State University in Tempe says: "I think the opportunity to use science as a political tool against Bush has been irresistible -- but it is very dangerous for science, and for politics. You can expect to see similar accusations of the political use of science in the next regime." [...] And because polls show that scientists tend to be Democrats, Sarewitz says, their complaints should be viewed cautiously.
First off, assuming our next president is a Democrat, Sarewitz's observations would seem to contradict themselves. Aside from that, consider how Vergano closes the piece:
"The danger comes when (science) gets to be seen as simply politics by other means," (Harvard science historian Steven) Shapin says. "Why trust it then?"
Posted by Ian Hart at 7:24 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
August 6, 2007
Category: White House
This morning, hotel guests across the country this morning woke up to a chronicle of the divide between science and poltics in USA Today's "Science vs. politics gets down and dirty." There's no need to hit the complimentary continental breakfast for a second cup of coffee when your morning news starts
The relationship (between the Bush administration and the nation's scientific community) hit a new low last month when Richard Carmona, surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, lashed out at his former colleagues in testimony before a House committee.
Normally, I'd think the nation's most circulated paper covering attacks on science integrity is a good thing. Unfortunately, throughout the article author Dan Vergano consistently confuses political interference and political considerations.
Read on »
Posted by Ian Hart at 10:23 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 26, 2007
Category: Humor
Jesse Springer of Eugene, Oregon is the new Union of Concerned Scientists Science Idol His entry was our pick as well:
Established last year, UCS's "Science Idol" is an annual editorial cartoon contest on the theme of science integrity. Last year's winning cartoon is here.
Check out all of this year's finalists.
Posted by Ian Hart at 12:18 PM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: White House
In a nutshell:
"This administration's political appointees might be unique in their contempt for government scientists and the empiric process that shapes their work."
Read "Frog by frog." Hat-tip to Michael Halpern
Posted by Ian Hart at 9:53 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 24, 2007
Category: General • White House
A number of voices have weighed in following this months revelation that Surgeon General Richard Cormona had been subject to widespread political restrictions from the White House during his 2002-2006 tenure. Many have held up the story as another example of politics and bias getting in the way of reality-based problem solving -- the Kaiser Family Foundation has even collected some of the editorials, and provides summaries.
Of course, the Washington Machine being what it is, we now have the inevitable backlash. Accordingly, Fox News is attacking the messenger.
It may, indeed, be a fair point to accuse the Bush administration of politicizing science. But Richard Carmona isn't the person to make it. Carmona's entire term as surgeon general has been marked by embracing every last hobgoblin promoted by the public health movement, generally above and beyond what the science says. Sometimes in spite of it. ...
The critique is fairly libertarian: negative effects of marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol are overhyped, and were overhyped by Carmona.
Read on »
Posted by Ian Hart at 7:00 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 23, 2007
Category: General
The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby had an interesting thought-piece in yesterday's paper.
Did you hear about the religious fundamentalist who wanted to teach physics at Cambridge University? This would-be instructor wasn't simply a Christian; he was so preoccupied with biblical prophecy that he wrote a book titled "Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John." Based on his reading of Daniel, in fact, he forecast the date of the Apocalypse: no earlier than 2060. He also calculated the year the world was created. When Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning," he determined, it means 3988 BC.
Not many modern universities are prepared to employ a science professor who espouses not merely "intelligent design" but out-and-out divine creation.
The man in question is Sir Isaac Newton, whom Cambridge nominated to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics in 1668.
Read on »
Posted by Ian Hart at 12:35 PM • 5 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 2, 2007
Category: Think Tanks
Would the oil and gas industry underwrite research that makes the plight of the polar bear seem, well, less dire? Does a polar bear swim in the Arctic? From NewScientist:
Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and his colleagues question whether polar bear populations really are declining and if sea ice, on which the animals hunt, will actually disappear as quickly as climate models predict (Ecological Complexity, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002). Soon, who receives funding for this and other work from Exxon-Mobil, has been attacking climate change science for several years. Three of the six other authors also have links to the oil industry.
If the polar bears' habitat disappears later than predicted, is that a valid excuse to delay implementing a solution? How does this study jibe with the ExxonMobil Foundation's s biodiversity efforts ("Protect Tomorrow. Today")?
Posted by Ian Hart at 12:44 PM • 2 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Founded in 1987 and based in Oakland, California the Pacific Institute is an independent, nonpartisan think-tank studying issues at the intersection of development, environment, and security.
