1. grrlscientist
  2. Is Bush Really Science's Worst Enemy?

Is Bush Really Science's Worst Enemy?

By grrlscientist on October 23, 2006.

When you see Bush's bone-headed responses to cutting-edge scientific research, especially global warming and embryonic stem cell reasearch, it's easy to think that he is the worst thing to happen to science in the history of this nation. But other 19th and 20th century presidents have ignored science to further their own political and religious agendas, so is Bush really the worst enemy of scientific research?

If you are the science advisor to the president, you would deny this allegation;

According to John Marburger, Bush's science advisor, allegations that Bush is harder on science than previous commanders-in-chief are "off the mark and are based on incomplete knowledge of the administration's actions and positions."

Not surprisingly, scientists disagree with Marburger;

The Union of Concerned Scientists would disagree. Nearly two years ago, the UCS began collecting signatures from scientists who oppose the Bush administration's misuse of science. That list now contains more than 9,000 names.

This long but fascinating article by Alison McCook examines the uneasy relationship between science and politics. I am interested to read your thoughts about it. Did this article present a compelling argument? What was (or could have been) an especially convincing argument for you?

The Scientist story.

Tags
biology
Politics

More like this

Not at all.

I found her argument to be a joke, a combination of red herrings, selective examples, BS experts (not just Marburger but some industry hacks), and a stupid conspiracy theory that scientists just hate Bush because they're Democrats. I've seen better writing on the Free Republic.

Ah, but this was fun:

According to Sarewitz, there is a big difference between altering scientific conclusions and putting someone from the private sector on an advisory board. The first instance is a clear manipulation of science and the scientific process, he says, while the second is not.

To be followed by a several capital letters, indicating much amusement.

Bob

Instances of the Bush White House misusing science certainly exist, "but it's important to keep in mind that these issues are focused on a very small part of the enterprise," says Daniel Sarewitz ...

Why yes. The 'very small part' which includes global warming, stem cells, iraq invasion mortality, bird flu, pollution, evolution, ...

If there is a redeeming aspect to this debacle, it is that mouthpieces like Sarewitz have abandoned even the pretense of honesty.

Yeah, when I fisked it it was distressing because just about every paragraph said something mind-bendingly stupid. I ended up having to quote almost the whole article to deal with each individual piece of fatuity.

Good word that.

The public's attention to stem cell research has increased substantially since 2001, when the debated first broke into the news. While majorities say they support stem cell research question wording can influence results, which suggests there is still some uncertainty on this question. For more public opinion on stem cell research, visit Public Agenda's Issue Guide on Medical Research (see http://publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=medical_research).

Public Agenda (http://publicagenda.org) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group devoted to public opinion and public policy.