Former surgeon general Richard Carmona is telling us what we already know: that the Bush administration has, from the beginning, put ideology ahead of science.
The news just gets worse about how politics has trumped science throughout the current White House administration's tenure. Pick a topic--embryonic stem cells, global warming, mercury levels in the environment--and on each one, this administration has denied science when it interfered with the president's ideology.
Now the former surgeon general, Richard Carmona, who held office from 2002 to 2006, is telling Congress in considerable detail how he was muzzled on everything from stem cells and sex education to a report on secondhand smoke. He was also told to mention President Bush at least three times on each page of every speech, and was directed to give speeches in support of Republican candidates.
According to a front-page article in Tuesday's New York Times,
On issue after issue, Dr. Carmona asserted, the Bush administration made decisions about important public health issues based solely on political considerations, not scientific ones.
"I was told to stay away from those because we've already decided which way we want to go," Dr. Carmona said.
He described attending a meeting of top officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. The other officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said.
Politicians have always tried to manipulate facts to suit their agendas, and they will again, though the scale attempted by this administration is truly astonishing. So is the hubris that somehow people wouldn't notice that the administration's ideology contradicted facts and empirical proof.
Inevitably, facts have a nasty habit of being, well, real--for example, the fact that abortions do not cause breast cancer, despite a government website that kept making this claim against all scientific evidence. Or that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rapidly rising. Or that most Americans support embryonic stem-cell research.
Yet there is a curious twist here in the sheer breadth and audacity of the effort. Most presidents manipulate science, or try to, but they keep quiet about it, following T. S. Eliot's observation that "Between the idea / And the reality / Between the motion / And the act / Falls the shadow." This White House did not hide in the shadows with its science policies. It stayed firmly in the spotlight.
Almost from the beginning--certainly in August 2001, when President Bush announced his restrictive policy on stem-cell research--George W. Bush made little effort to hide his disregard for science that didn't agree with his ideology. This is what is revealing about Carmona's testimony to the Senate yesterday, which paints a picture of a surgeon general who was essentially told to ignore reality on many issues. For instance, he was simply told not to mention scientific studies that questioned a sex-education policy that relies solely on abstinence.
In an area I'm more familiar with, embryonic stem-cell research, the administration's policies disregarded reality on two issues. First, the president's core constituency was quite vocal about its wish to ban the use of embryonic stem cells for research and its hope that their use could be criminalized. This is despite the fact that the science is readily accessible to trained scientists around the world and that most Americans want the potential treatments and cures promised by stem-cell research. Second, the president's policy to allow research only on stem-cell lines created before August 2001 was problematic because the lines in question were fewer than promised and mostly unusable.
Despite the president's anti-science stances during his first term, George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, in part because science is seldom a determining factor in election outcomes. In 2004, the electorate was more concerned about the threat of terrorism, the war in Iraq, and other front-burner issues.
Perhaps Americans in 2004 should have paid a bit more attention to the science policies of the Bush administration. One can only hope that in 2008 science and facts have a bit more influence with both the candidates and the electorate.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
mkogrady
07/13/2007
Posts:202
The retiring surgeon general's complaints on this issue are disingenuous. Bush announced his stem cell funding policy in 2001. Carmona took office in 2002. Are we to believe he was such a political ingenue that he didn't realize he wouldn't be allowed to voice his own opinion on this hot-button issue? Does he think we're stupid?
If Carmona truly believed that he was being forced to tell lies in his speeches, and being forced to sign reports that were a pack of lies, then he had a responsibility to the American people to resign in protest. Did he do that? No. He served out his term, got himself a secure job, and now suddenly -- right before the election -- he is up in arms and indignant, playing the role of the righteous scientist, indifferent to everything but the facts. Yeah, sure.
I am not concerned about politicians being politicians. I am concerned about journalists being politicians, scientists being politicians, and political appointees being politicians.
dmm
07/13/2007
Posts:192
Federal funds are not allowed to be used for this research, because supposedly this research is immoral. It violates the "sanctity" of life. But never mind that local states, and private groups are allowed to fund and freely conduct this research. Sanctity of life applies no more - 'morality' stops at the federal level. What kind of sick and brainwashed minds can come up with such distorted, schizophrenic morality?
What this case illustrates is that right wingers are not only scientifically illiterate, but flat out illogical.
How are we supposed to have a meaningful debate with people who are so stupid they cannot even follow their own train of thought?
gabrielg01
07/13/2007
Posts:400
First, President Bush has power only at the federal level. He is not simultaneously governor of all 50 states, and he knows that he does not have the votes in Congress to ban all state gov't or private funding of ESC research. That is not illogical; it is called "federalism" and "politics."
Second, opponents of ESC research are indeed active at the state level, but of course some states like California and Massachusetts are more liberal than others, so the ESC research opponents get out-voted. That is called "democracy." Then there are the states where "sanctity of life" people win victories in legislatures or referendums, only to have them annulled by liberal judges. That is called (depending upon which side you talk to) "constitutionality" or "judicial dictatorship."
Are you proposing that, to be logically consistent, "sanctity of life" people should round up people like you and shoot them as murderers and collaborators? And if they are not willing to take those steps, then they are not allowed to debate the issue? But wait! Weren't you just arguing earlier this week on this forum that religions had no right to debate moral issues because they used to kill people who disagreed with them (and some still do)?
It seems you just want religious people to shut up, and you don't need a reason.
dmm
07/13/2007
Posts:192
Nevertheless, there are still big holes in the right wing logic. The federal gov. can regulate a lot of high tech. The FDA could, in principle, regulate embryonic and stem cell research. Yet Bush&Co did not push for this regulation, even though it lied within their grasp (when they controlled Congress).
The irony, of course, is that a lot of the right wing politicians are in the pockets of big pharma, so their "sanctity of life" moralizing can only go so far.
Leaving politics aside, I am surprised that anyone can think that the development of science can actually be stopped. This just shows how badly some people misunderstand science. Sad.
gabrielg01
07/14/2007
Posts:400
You talk as if the "right wing" were monolithic, but of course it is not. For example, many "right wingers" want to shrink the size and power of government -- especially the federal government -- whenever possible. This group of "right wingers" would not like your idea of having the FDA regulate ESC research. Also, having the FDA regulate something is a de facto admission that the thing being regulated is OK in principle (as long as it is done properly). This would be opposed by the "right wingers" who think that all ESC research is tantamount to murder. Also, once the president put things into the hands of science bureaucrats he would not be able to control the outcome except by "meddling in the affairs of science." And then, as you yourself point out, many "right wingers" are more "pro business" than they are "pro life."
So Bush had to take all these various "right wing" viewpoints into account when making his decision about ESC research. Anyone is free to disagree with his decision, but I think it is very unfair to label the decision either "anti-science" or "illogical." Such labeling shows the critic to be either biased or uninformed or naive. The issues surrounding ESC research are only simple and obvious to people (on both sides) who already have their minds made up and won't listen to the other side.
I don't think there are many people who "think that the development of science can actually be stopped" or that, in general, it should be stopped. Sometimes though, a temporary halt may be in order. (For example, the moratorium a few years ago on GMO creation until safety issues could be addressed by the community.) At other times, a complete and permanent halt may be appropriate. (For example, bans on development of bio warfare weapons.) And on other issues, the ban (either temporary or permanent) may be on particular methods of arriving at the knowledge, rather than on the knowledge itself. (For example, bans on most human experimentation, bans on all but the most necessary great ape experiments, and bans on using ESCs rather than adult stem cells.) This last category will always be the most controversial, because everyone agrees that the knowledge would be useful, but disagrees on the morality of how to obtain it and how to apply it. We should not give in to the temptation to demonize our opponents, just so we can have our way. THAT is illogical.
dmm
07/16/2007
Posts:192
That is where the ad hominem comes in. Since they are secretive and bullying, there is no way to actually have a debate with them. They know they are right, because "God tells them" they are right.
There is nothing else for us to do than to point out that these people are IDIOTS! We will have debates only when someone with a brain lives in the White House.
PS - the irony is that stem cell research could benefit both Dick Cheney and George Bush. One needs a new heart, the other a new brain.
gabrielg01
07/16/2007
Posts:400
lifes a bitch get over it.
cam_daddy09
07/14/2007
Posts:2
Is that your idea of a fair election?
jmaximus9
07/20/2007
Posts:83
With that said, politicians can not be (and should not be) expected to makes decisions on science-based matters. Leave it to the experts. After all, if you had some life threatening heart-related issue, would you talk to a politican or a heart surgeon? I'm sure you can think of other valid examples.
photonplumbe...
07/14/2007
Posts:1
They also try to bypass the traditional gatekeepers of science: universities and independent research institutes. Instead they use thinktanks, which are not independent institutions. They are politically aligned entities, and they try to fit reality to their preformed political ideology. That's not how real science is done.
gabrielg01
07/14/2007
Posts:400
Regarding universities: Faculty members at our nation's universities are overwhelmingly hyper-liberal Democrats (or worse), and faculty appointments are VERY VERY political. At the majority of universities, political conservatives often only get in by accident, and religious conservatives need not apply. The "experts" self-select for people who agree with themselves. This is so widespread and blatent, that academia doesn't even bother denying it any longer. This group of people is no longer representative of the nation, and its "science" is often suspect. That is why it has lost its traditional authority with the masses (and therefore with politicians). If academia wants to regain its voice, it will have to radically change its makeup.
A second reason for the public's loss of confidence in academia is the growing insistence of scientists and scientific organizations to be kow-towed to as "experts" in areas or on issues for which they are obviously NOT experts. Like the much-maligned Catholic bishops (but worse), they pontificate on economics, racial quotas, international politics, arms control, education, tax policy, entitlement programs, morality -- you name it! Basically what they are saying is, "We're smarter than you, so you dopes should just do what we say." Not surprisingly, this does not go over well with Americans.
It all boils down to this: Insularity breeds arrogance, in academia just as in politics (not to mention journalism and religion).
dmm
07/16/2007
Posts:192
On the flip side, most conservatives will not be attracted to a job that requires them to question (and change) their values and their cherished traditions. This easily explains the lopsided ratio.
When we talk about science, then we should indeed talk about science and nothing else. Retrograde politicians do not want to listen to scientists, because they are afraid of what might they hear. Listening to politically motivated thinktanks is simply a science fraud.
"We the people" type of thinking does not hold in science issues. Scientific issues are not based on democracy. "You the people" don't get to decide what the laws of nature are. Better listen to people who are the most prepared and learned in their subject.
gabrielg01
07/16/2007
Posts:400
Many people have pointed out the impossibility of talking "about science and nothing else." Ironically, most of them are liberals in academia, and their most vociferous opponents have been (otherwise-liberal) scientists defending their status as demi-gods. But when it comes to _applying_ science to public policy, I would hope that even you could see that one cannot "talk about science and nothing else." Certainly politicians should _listen_ to scientists, and certainly they should take into account the relative number of scientists with a given opinion on how the known facts should be interpreted. But in the end they have to make a _political_ decision, which will take into account not only minority scientific opinions but also many non-scientific factors. (And please note that NON-scientific does not mean UN-scientific, and "minority opinion" does not automatically mean "wrong.")
dmm
07/17/2007
Posts:192
Oh and by the way, most Americans are convinced of global warming so Republicans cannot even claim to follow some democratic process. Bush is up against the American people on this issue. Undemocratic.
People say that we should learn from history, so that mistakes won't be repeated again. Well, just remember that conservatives stood for slavery, for racial segregation, against women's rights. I am convinced that one day we will have medical cures based on stem cell research, and hopefully we may have fixed global warming too. And once again conservatives will be remembered as the *ssholes who opposed social progress. Good luck!
gabrielg01
07/17/2007
Posts:400
You can't go by poll results with mamby-pamby questions like "Is global warming real?" The truth is, Americans are "convinced" of global warming ONLY UNTIL IT TOUCHES THEIR LIFESTYLE OR THEIR WALLETS. I don't call that "convinced."
Most liberals blast Bush for not "showing leadership" in the area of global warming, by which they mean "going against the clear will of the vast majority of Americans." But have the liberals in Congress stuck their necks out on this issue, by proposing serious, realistic, PAINFUL solutions to what they claim is an unprecedented disaster-in-the-making? Of course not!
I've only seen ONE American politician (from either party) be honest on global warming: Rep. John Dingell (D) of Michigan. See this article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0712/p11s01-wogi.html
dmm
07/17/2007
Posts:192
gabrielg01
07/17/2007
Posts:400
pellev1
07/16/2007
Posts:1
Or...
Because he is really a moron and believes in fairy tales about God[s] who live in the clouds with their true believers?
More likely it is he uses religion as a cover from the sheeple, to get away with his self serving US Constitution breaking power grabs.
He is stupid but with a cryptic diabolical purpose; greed, power, and religion.
http://www.cafepress.com/impeachshrub
jmaximus9
07/20/2007
Posts:83