Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.
The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.
According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.
It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives.
The Union has released an “A to Z” guide that it says documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science, covering issues ranging from global warming to sex education.
Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.
Michael Halpern from the UCS said the statement of objection to political interference had been supported by researchers regardless of their political views.
“This science statement that has now been signed by the 10,000 scientists is signed by science advisers to both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to President Eisenhower, stating that this is not business as usual and calling for this practice to stop,” he told BBC News.
Phew! That’s a lot of well-educated subversives. A number of university science departments must still be teaching ethics.
You need a sexy geek to convince people, try Cindy Crawford; yes Cindy Crawford. She’s a Chemical engineer.
I feel for these oppressed scientists….I really do….whats a respectable scientist supposed to do….take the money and run or not take the money and actually have to come up with results to get a private investor to back them.
Science has no one to blame for it’s politicalization other than itself. They have kissed so many goverment butts to get money that half the agency heads in the goverment have mononucliocious of the arse.
Scientists used to struggle by on University funding or get regular jobs to pay for their own and they moved the world ahead at an amazing speed. But since WWII, most of them feel that they can’t do research unless it’s tax payer funded….thats a crock.
But, if you want to be truly independent and do truly independent research, you can’t have your hand out looking for goverment grants.
Edison, Newton, Einstien(pre-US), Galilaio, Da Vinci, the list goes on and on, none of these men were goverment funded, most did it with their own money, the rest got help from Universities.
Should grants be politically free of strings….sure…..will it ever happen, no matter which party is in power….yeah….when pigs fly(on their own).
I’m already sick of reading all the stories about….***Now that the Democrats have won we are going to get this or that done, this will change, that will change***…..do you people really believe that?? If you do, then some of you aren’t as smart as I have believed you were. The only thing that will get done or changed is the party name after the crook is written about, or who’s crony’s will be getting the good contracts. The Democrats haven’t been out of power long enough for you all(since most of you are a lot older and been arouind a lot longer than i) to have collectively forgot all the crooked crap that went on when they were in power. Hell, I almost can’t blame the poor Republicans for rushing headlong into corruption, they hadn’t been in power for 45 years.
These scientists are dreaming, and from the names I read, most come from an era when goverment wasn’t the primary funder.
you dont mix..Much of…
Science…the finding of truths threw facts and experiments.
Religion.. the finding of truths thru the past
Politics…. the truth that I can make you believe..
Some science mix’s with religion like archiology..
Some Sci mix’s with the past, like what WAS that funny mixture they made that went BOOM..
But Politics dont mix well with EITHER..
Ron & Smith,
If you want to be credible, please cite your sources. Just ranting that this is all bull only demeans any point you are trying to make. That is if you have a point.
And PLEASE, either link or use tinyurl.com.
Mr. Fusion, I did but it was deleted see #13, if you want the quick version, it is the World Health Organization reports on malaria in Africa, EPA’s 1970’s hearings on DDT, and the British health journal on malaria in Africa. I also used Wikipedia for how DDT works, since some loon thought it killed birds and not mosquitoes, and we all know mosquitoes only bite birds, not people or other animals.
I’m still waiting for anyone to cite anything to prove I am wrong. Typical of the left.
Fascist: 1. Anyone winning an argument with a liberal. 2. Someone who will not give a liberal anything they want and tell them it’s a right.
Liberalism: The ability to stand on your head and tell the world it is upside-down.
#38 Fusion, you want me to give you a quick link to support my position, except that my position is based upon twenty years of observations, reading, and study. Sorry, but I don’t have the time to compile a list of appropriate links that I’m sure you wouldn’t bother to read anyway.
DDT is a tragic example of environmetalism run amok. There was never any proof that DDT harmed humans, but, by God, we found it in human breast milk so it must be bad. Millions have died as a result, but since they are mostly black from third world countries, their deaths are largely ignored.
Fortunately, the World Health Organization is planning to allow DDT to be used again. A little late for millions.
I wonder how Rachael Carson can sleep at night?
If only 10,000 researchers are complaining, shouldn’t we just call them whiners and ignore them? These people who want to be able to publish and discuss their findings without externally-imposed filters sound very cultish, and not at all like mainstream America. Who would expect a Nobel Laureate to understand how the world really works? If scientists think it’s bad working for a politically-motivated government, they should try working for a corporation, like a chemical or drug company.
Even better than ignoring them, everyone signing that petition who has a government job should be fired — that’ll teach ’em the lesson they missed in science class!
“Little toxicity is seen following the dermal exposure to DDT, presumably because the agent is poorly absorbed through the skin, a physiologic phenomenon that has contributed to the rather good safety record of DDT, despite careless handling by applicators and formulators (Hayes, 1971). It has been estimated that a dose of 10 mg/kg will cause signs of poisoning in humans. Chronic exposure to moderate concentrations of DDT causes somewhat milder signs of toxicity as listed in Table 18-7.” (table located on page 575 in book referenced below)
“Although the functional injury of DDT poisoning can be associtated with effects on the CNS, few pathologic changes can be demonstrated in that tissue in animals. However, following exposure to moderate or high nonfatal doses or subsequent to subacute or chronic feeding, major pathologic changes are observed in the liver and reproductive organs. Morphalogic changes in mammalian liver include hypertrphy of hepatocytes and subcellular organelles such as mitochondria, proliferation of smooth endoplamic reticulum and the formation of inclusion bodies, centrolobular necrosis followoing exposure to high concentrations, and an increase in the incidence of hepatic tumors (Hayes, 1959; Hansell and Ecobichon, 1974; IARC, 1974). However, there has been no epidemiologic evidence linking DDT to carcinogenicity in humans (Hayes, 1975, 1982).
. . . Unlike the situation with DDT where there have been few recorded fatalities following poisoning, there have been a number of fatalities following poisioning by cyclodiene and hexachlorocylcohexane type insectides.”
Casarett and Doull’s TOXICOLOGY, the Basic Science of Poisons, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, pages 574-575.
Any science coming out of the US Environmental Protection Agency is considered highly suspect by anyone that actually followed the process.
#45, Smith,
Have you got any references less then 20 years old?
#45 Fusion, that particular book was the reference book in my 1995 post-graduate, toxicology course. Please keep in mind that all of the referenced studies were damn near everything that was available at the time DDT was banned.
Here’s a few more cited sources for Mr. Fusion.
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm#ref6
I’m sure you can figure out a cut and paste, but it may be hard