When Donald Kennedy, a biologist and editor of the eminent journal Science, was asked what had led so many American scientists to feel that George W. Bush's administration is anti-science, he isolated a familiar pair of culprits: climate change and stem cells. These represent, he said, "two solid issues in which there is a real difference between a strong consensus in the science community and the response of the administration to that consensus."
Smith cites a number of other scientists and advocates who are fed up with the right's distortions of and interference with science, including Chris C. Mooney, author of the new book The Republican War on Science (watch for a Grist Q&A with Mooney coming up soon). But Smith also gives a fair bit of space to presidential science adviser John Marburger, who continues to defend the admin's record. Guess which side makes a stronger case.
Comments
View as Flat
redboat Posted 2:58 pm
05 Sep 2005
From the latest issue of "Sierra" magazine:
Fishy Science - Why bother learning anything new if you've already made up your mind? That seems to be the philosophy of Dale Hall, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southwest regional director, who in January directed staff biologists charged with protecting endangered species not to use any new genetic data discovered since a species was first listed. Critics of the decision include 163 scientists who called on Hall to rescind the policy. In July, President Bush announced he was nominating Hall to head the agency.
eddy out, redboat
Permalink
redboat Posted 8:43 am
26 Sep 2005
For a taste of the case he presents, check out his recent column in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette: The Bush administration's abuse of science
eddy out, redboat
Permalink
redboat Posted 1:16 pm
29 Sep 2005
http://eddyoutblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/bush-science.html
eddy out, redboat
Permalink