U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Finding

tree3075 writes "The LA Times is reporting that a survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has found hundreds of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists have been instructed to change findings to favor business interests. I'm not surprised anymore when I read these things."

Oh No!!

[MrP- (45616)]

"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."

Oh no! They got to Slashdot too!

Re:Oh No!!

[randallpowell (842587)]

First Christians want creationism taught in schools now this.

I, for one, welcome our new censored, creationist supporting theocratic "scientists"

Scientific honesty.

[lifejunkie (785838)]

Scientific honesty is the core and foundation of all of our discoverys. If kepler modified his measurements to fit into the then current view of things, astronomy would have been set back 100 years.

Sad reality

[FiReaNGeL (312636)]

Slightly related to the post, but here's my 2 cents. Science is expensive. Very expensive. And when a scientist has the choice between getting his career ruined because of bad results / wrong hypothesis or lie in order to get a second chance, some do chose the second option. Of course, the 'lie' isn't always intentional, even conscious; some tend to alter to reality in order to see what they want to see. You can't be always right, but when you're wrong, funding (private or public) gets a lot tougher to get. It can be fatal to a scientific career... when you put your life behind an idea, you tend to want to be right. No matter what. The funding system is just bad; failure is punished too harshly.

Now back on topic, political ingerence in science is even worse. Especially when motivated by a $$ agenda. Your career versus a should-be-protected plant? Not everyone has the courage to say 'no'... I admire this group of scientist, they had the courage to stand up. Sadly, some don't, and we'll never know it.

A few issues

[Tethys_was_taken (813654)]

First off, from TFA:

The survey of the agency's scientific staff of 1,400 had a 30% response rate and was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

and

More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which

[Emphasis added]

Okay, so "more than half" of 30% makes it a little over 15%. So thats around 210+ scientists. Technically, the summary is right in saying "hundreds", but it sounds a whole lot more sensational than it really is.

Secondly, also from TFA

Mitch Snow, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency had no comment on the survey, except to say "some of the basic premises just aren't so."

If that's not dodging the issue, I don't know what is. I would seriously like a spokesman for a scientific agency to give a better defense to his stand than that very vague statement that says nothing.

False sensationalism and dodging aside, I believe this is a very serious issue. If the scientific integrity of this office has been reduced because of corporate pressures, there's very little faith left in me for any scientific agency. People generally assume that science works in the best interests of man, even though the results may go against him.

Re:A few issues

[damiangerous (218679)]

More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which

I also wonder how many of these biologists "knew of" the same incident. Scientists of a given discipline are a pretty tight knit and gossipy group. Asking if they "knew of" an incident smacks of urban legend mongering, everyone knows a guy whose cousin swears it happened to his old roommate.

News Flash!

[ErikZ (55491)]

In the news today, scientists working on politically sensitive issues are pressured by politicans.

Slashdot readers are shocked and amazed.

"I blame the Bush administration" says one.

"Who would of thought there would be a connection between the Federal government and Federally mandated enviromental issues?" Crys another.

"Wait, it doesn't say if enviromental groups were pressuring the Scientists." Commented one before he was quicken beaten down.

Acquiescence starts with cynicism

[Infonaut (96956)]

I honestly can't believe you're saying this! 200 researchers are saying that the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is not a private organization, has told them change findings to match an agenda that lies outside of science. Don't you think that's hideous?

If the public doesn't believe the system can ever work properly, it's all that much easier to manipulate it. This seems to be a recurring theme with the current administration. If you screw up, screw up big and everyone will let it slide:

1) Hey, this strategic intelligence stuff is difficult, how could we know there weren't WMDs there?

2) Wars are complicated. Taking control of a nation is complicated. Of course there are bound to be a lot of really, really serious screw-ups in our planning.

3) What is "torture?" I mean, really. Aren't we really just splitting hairs here? One man's "brutal interrogation" is another man's "questioning session." Besides, this sort of thing has always happened throughout history, but in previous American wars there weren't nosy reporters snooping around all over the place.

4) Everyone knows government is inefficient. We're trying to cut the size of the government. If we cut domestic spending, we can slice out the deficit and shrink government. And we all know that the military and government are two totally different things, which is why $8 billion in missing funds in Washington demands outrage, while $8 billion missing in Iraq is just the fog of war.

5) It's impossible to estimate the cost of war in Iraq before we go in. It's impossible to estimate the cost of the war once we're in it. Therefore it is obviously impossible to estimate its cost in the future, which is why it's not in the budget package.

Desensitize the public to gross incompetence by convincing them that it is to be expected, and over time the public will come to expect it. Those who are outraged will be promptly marginalized as hopelessly romantic idiots.

So let's analyze the data...

[the_skywise (189793)]

1400 people were sent surveys. 30% responded which means about 420 people responded. These people responded in spite of "...memos from Fish and Wildlife officials that instructed employees not to respond to the survey, even if they did so on their own time. Snow said that agency employees could not use work time to respond to outside surveys."

However, 69% [~300 of the 420 people who responded] said they had never been given such a directive[to alter results]. And, although more than half of the respondents said they had been ordered to alter findings to lessen protection of species, nearly 40% said they had never been required to do so.

So of the 1400 people sent surveys, 420 responded IN SPITE OF ORDERS NOT TO DO SO and of those 420, only 42 said they had been forced to alter results.

That's not to say that science and politics shouldn't be mixed this way. It's bad. But it happens on BOTH SIDES of the political line.

Look at one of the last quotes:
"Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results, saying she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.

"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases," she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming out of the agency.""

That's 12 years under Republican Administrations and 8 years under a Democratic one.

You guys want to stop this? Good. But first realize this is not just a Bush/Republican problem... This is a SYSTEM WIDE problem.

Re:So let's analyze the data...

[tfoss (203340)]

That's 12 years under Republican Administrations and 8 years under a Democratic one.

You guys want to stop this? Good. But first realize this is not just a Bush/Republican problem... This is a SYSTEM WIDE problem.

Except that the current administration has a certifiable habit of being deceptive or outright lying. Trying to impose a false moral equivalence is inappropriate in this situation. System wide or not, the Bush administration has provided ample evidence that they are far more prone to executive abuses than any previous administration in recent memory.

-Ted

The March of Freedom (OT)

[copponex (13876)]

In other news, the March of Freedom was going to happen anyway. [cnn.com]

Bush just knows how to get it done propping up our military industrial complex. Thank God for that! (No, really! Thank the invisible man in the sky.)

"I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds?" - David Cross

Re:The March of Freedom (OT)

[808140 (808140)]

You make a good point -- why trust the ravings of a lunatic mass murderer -- but at the same time, given his reason and Bush's reason, which seems closer to the truth?

Leaving the issue of whether he actually is a lunatic mass murderer or not alone for the moment, which seems more likely: the digested sound-bite propaganda (hates our freedom) or the one that suggests that he might have had an actual reason based on things the US has actually done that he didn't like?

Partisan raving aside, the problem with the whole "hates our freedom" thing is that it is clearly designed to be wartime propaganda. Look at it. It takes the one thing that every American values -- our freedom -- and makes it out to be something that Osama hates.

The other takes things that, while certainly not warranting something like the WTC attacks, are considered bad by a great number of people nowhere near as crazy as Osama: namely, support for Israel in the face of its flagrant disregard for UN resolutions and support of the theocratic regime in Saudi Arabia.

See, no one is going to come away from "he hates our freedom" thinking that Osama, for all his lunacy, might actually have a point or a reason worth considering for his hatred of the US. It's a great way to make sure everyone is behind you, everyone supports you. Osama's reasons are a little bit more of gray area. I don't think anyone would say, "Damn, Osama has a point, I guess we should do what he says and not kill him slowly like we'd planned," but people might say, "After we kill him slowly, maybe we should evaluate how our actions in the middle east are affecting the way the US is viewed there, and how we can help stabilize the region by not generally coming off as total dicks."

I believe it was Sun Tzu who said, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

We are in a situation here where, by way of wartime propaganda, we are being encouraged to not consider the motivations of the enemy. This, from a strategic perspective, is very dangerous. There was a documentary about Robert S. Macnamara a while ago, called "The Fog of War"; did you see it? (I recommend it, it was very interesting.) Robert S. Macnamara was Secretary of Defense under JFK and Lyndon Johnson. He was around for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and Vietnam was called "Macnamara's war" back in the day. The guy was one of the west's primary strategists during the cold war; it's very interesting hearing his perspective now, years later, as an old man.

He comments on how he saw the North Vietnamese versus how they saw themselves, and it's really quite insightful. He says that at the time, he saw the North Vietnamese as being puppets for the Soviets and the Chinese, attempting to spread communism into South East Asia. Much later, he talked with his equivalent on the Vietnamese side and was told that from their perspective, the Americans were imperialists who wanted nothing more than to colonize where the French had failed. When presented with the idea that they were in fact acting as proxy for war with the PRC and USSR, his Vietnamese counterpart absolutely scoffed. "Vietnam was occupied by China before it was occupied by the French," he said (I'm paraphrasing). "We had never been our own country; we were fighting for our independance. No matter how many tanks or military personnel you had sent, we would have won, because we were not invaders -- we were fighting for our freedom."

While we Americans may laugh at the Vietnamese view of freedom, it's pretty apparent that he was absolutely right. They handed us our asses in Vietnam; they then did the same to the Chinese in 1979. It was a classic case of not knowing your enemy, and Robert Macnamara makes a point of using this and other examples from his life to illustr

Chocolate rations are up!

[discogravy (455376)]

Chocolate rations are up! There is no environmental problem! The defecit is not a problem! Except social security, that's fucked! But tax breaks for the rich are the best idea since pre-emptive wars! We have always been at war with Oceania^WIraqanistanKorea!

The slow downward spiral

[abulafia (7826)]

There's a lot of babbling and finger pointing about political bias, the media, etc. Perhaps one voice of reason that's a favorite around here might have a thing or two to say [reason.com] on the topic that looks beyond party politics, and is extremely relevant to this discussion:

The success of the U.S. has not come from one consistent cause, as far as I can make out. Instead the U.S. will find a way to succeed for a few decades based on one thing, then, when that peters out, move on to another. Sometimes there is trouble during the transitions. So, in the early-to-mid-19th century, it was all about expansion westward and a colossal growth in population. After the Civil War, it was about exploitation of the world's richest resource base: iron, steel, coal, the railways, and later oil. For much of the 20th century it was about science and technology. The heyday was the Second World War, when we had not just the Manhattan Project but also the Radiation Lab at MIT and a large cryptology industry all cooking along at the same time. The war led into the nuclear arms race and the space race, which led in turn to the revolution in electronics, computers, the Internet, etc. If the emblematic figures of earlier eras were the pioneer with his Kentucky rifle, or the Gilded Age plutocrat, then for the era from, say, 1940 to 2000 it was the engineer, the geek, the scientist. It's no coincidence that this era is also when science fiction has flourished, and in which the whole idea of the Future became current. After all, if you're living in a technocratic society, it seems perfectly reasonable to try to predict the future by extrapolating trends in science and engineering. It is quite obvious to me that the U.S. is turning away from all of this. It has been the case for quite a while that the cultural left distrusted geeks and their works; the depiction of technical sorts in popular culture has been overwhelmingly negative for at least a generation now. More recently, the cultural right has apparently decided that it doesn't care for some of what scientists have to say. So the technical class is caught in a pincer between these two wings of the so-called culture war. Of course the broad mass of people don't belong to one wing or the other. But science is all about diligence, hard sustained work over long stretches of time, sweating the details, and abstract thinking, none of which is really being fostered by mainstream culture. Since our prosperity and our military security for the last three or four generations have been rooted in science and technology, it would therefore seem that we're coming to the end of one era and about to move into another. Whether it's going to be better or worse is difficult for me to say. The obvious guess would be "worse." If I really wanted to turn this into a jeremiad, I could hold forth on that for a while. But as mentioned before, this country has always found a new way to move forward and be prosperous. So maybe we'll get lucky again. In the meantime, efforts to predict the future by extrapolating trends in the world of science and technology are apt to feel a lot less compelling than they might have in 1955.

Only one thing left to do

[kuzb (724081)]

(disclaimer: I'm not American, I'm just calling this as I see it. Some may be offended by this, sorry.)

America is no longer the land of the free, and the home of the brave. It's just a haven for corporate controlled special interest groups. Too bad, if people (meaning the government, and the corporations they're tied to) were less interested in making money, and more interested in helping their own country, and the planet as a whole, they really could be what they claim they are. As it stands, it's pretty much a lie. We see this all the time in things ranging from the war in iraq (which was based on a false premise to begin with), to ridiculous patent grants, to other environmentally important things like the Kyoto Accord. All the while, these people who make the key decisions are not held accountable for their actions. And when they are held accountable, which is rare, they're treated with more respect than they should be due. Got a CEO who made millions off the suffering of others? I got two words for you: General Population. Right beside the murderers, car thieves and rapists. Too bad it doesn't happen.

Frankly, I don't blame American individuals per-se. Some might say "well, you voted them in!" but if you have a good long look at the choices, there may as well not be any choices. Like people anywhere, they have their own worries on an individual level. It's not surprising that some of these scientists who are coerced by corporations with extreme power just comply. I mean, they have their own families to feed, and that has to be a primary worry of many of them. What would you do if someone threatened to take away your ability to provide for your kids? Lets face it, these people are caught in an economical machine they just can't change.

The truth is, capitolism doesn't work in favour of the base population. It's a system based on keeping the poor as poor as possible, and the rich as rich as possible, with a mid-point "hump" that's really hard to get past, even if you work your ass off. The government tends to make this whole thing far worse by letting large business entities get away with murder.

If I were American, I'd move. Anywhere has got to be better than where America is currently heading. You may wake up one day to find out your country has become the very thing you hate, assuming it's not there already.

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[sahrss (565657)]

Um, why did you already divide this into a Republican/Democrat debate? No one else has done any bashing yet, even the article submitter didn't (amazingly.)

What really bothered me about your post, though, was this:
"1. In the last 15 years, the majority of most of these scientist's time has been spend under a Democratic president;"

What, can we all just pick an arbitrary number of past years, whichever happens to overlap the point we want to push? Try 4 years? 20? :-P

Thanks for the interesting tidbit though.

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[TheFlyingGoat (161967)]

why did you already divide this into a Republican/Democrat debate?

He was planning ahead. See:
Example 1 [slashdot.org]
Example 2 [slashdot.org]
I'm sure there will be many more to follow.

He also brought it up because the group of scientists in the article (and always has been) are extremely leftist and always have been. It's the same as when Fox News gets mentioned, just in the opposite direction this time.

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[robertjw (728654)]

It's so sad that it's always Republican vs. Democrat. Why can't it simply be the People vs. the Government - the way it should be.

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[TheFlyingGoat (161967)]

I know your post was meant as a joke, and it is kind of funny, but I feel the need to respond to it. It is sad that it's always Republican vs. Democrat because both sides fail to see the benefits that the other brings to the table. Republican's goal of reduced taxes is great, just like Democrat's goal of environmental protection. Someone I read/listened to a few days back said the problem with politicians is that they get elected by saying yes to everything. However, in order to serve the people properly, they have to say no.

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Actually, having worked for the forest service and watched the shenannigans involved in some of the "environmental" impact reports, I have to say that I tend to believe the article, and I'm Republican. A report will come in saying something like "the cut as designed will have the following adverse effects ...," typically things like muddying the water and silting up spawning beds in really nice trout streams, "to avoid this the clearance along these streams should be be increased to say 90 horizontal feet."

The TMO had anticipated a 10 foot or 20 slope foot exclusion along the streams, and maybe a generous kickback from the multinational that wants to cut the timber and sell the best stuff to the Japanese - who at least appreciate nice wood. The original recommendation involved maybe 50 acres of timber out of 5,000. The TMO cries real tears in the SO's office and words are heard about "tree huggers" and "owl lovers" "jobs lost" and similar nonsense. The best timber is in those corridors!!

The SO may also be, almost unavoidably HAS to be, acquaintented with the multinational reps as well. Surprisingly the directive comes down, "change the corridor to 35 feet."

The backside of the story is that since many "specialists" know how these things work, they work very hard to identify "issues" that will protect their recommendations. Consequently, the stream is good but not critical trout habitat and some accountant (not a field scientist but a real, honest to god accountant who has never ventured into the woods alone in his life) has already determined how much stream the forest can "afford" to protect. His determination was made on the basis of a dollars and cents estimate he pulled from ... well ignore that. Anyway, it wasn't based on ANY environmental concern.

The biologist, knowing the dweeb who REALLY made the critical stream determination, has "fudged" the data, and another hot topic was inserted the hypothesis that creek corridor is nesting territory for spotted owls - who never harmed the biologist - but at least they'll protect his fish. When his crew is out "hoot owling" he'll be out there with a speaker system giving them something to listen and report. Most are pretty young, naieve, and honest, so he can't let them in on the secret.

The SO meanwhile knows perfectly well what's up. He recons that the entire issue is childish and that both the TMO and biologist would have been screaming just as loud regardless. He also knows the area is not pristine and that it was denuded 80 years ago, so there isn't any owl habitat really. But he does like fly fishing and plans to do some on that creek next spring now that biologist has pointed it out. So he pulls and other number out of the air, one he hopes will keep his multinational pals and the local loggers more or less happy, salt the beer of that conniving TMO, and piss on that biologist that lied about everything, all at the same time. Just maybe it'll protect the stream enough, too. Besides, he's retiring in 5 years anyway.

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[Meetch (756616)]

In Australia, some call it bush bashing. Others call it four wheel driving!

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[node 3 (115640)]

So, uh... This contradicts their findings how again?

Since we're exposing sources...

[aendeuryu (844048)]

Who is behind "Activist Cash"? [sourcewatch.org]

Don't get me wrong, it does look like the UCS is partisan. But it's not like the rebuttal is coming from a totally neutral voice, either.

Re:Heh.

[Ian Peon (232360)]

OK, let's see. whois activistcash.com:

Administrative Contact: Center for Consumer Freedom (WXZCXFOFKO) [e-mail] 1775 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 US 202-463-7112

When I dial that number I get, lo and behold, "Thank you for calling Berman and company..." Hmm... that's strange. If I do a quick lookup [superpages.com] of that number you find the Guest Choice Network. It's even more interesting to do a reverse lookup of the address [superpages.com]. Now we get 4 different law firms and the American Beverage Institute in the same office. Hmmm... the American Beverage Institute, with a phone number with only a single digit difference 202-463-7110. Calling that, the same voice answers saying "Thank you for calling the American Beverage Institute..."

Must be tough keeping all those organizations strait.

...ah the things that Speakeasy's unlimited long distance has done to my spare time...

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about either party? Tampering with the scientific process AT ALL must be condemned.

If political pressure was allowed to alter "scientific fact" then:
1: The sun would orbit the earth, the center of our solar system.
2: It would be the nature of things to move, then stop.
3: People could breath in space.
4: The earth would have suddenly come into existance a tad over five millenia ago.
5: Humans would have suddenly formed a few days after the earth.
6: Evolution would NOT have been proven to occur in a laboratory.

In all honesty, posts like the parent show growth in a disturbing trend. To wit, very well-spoken idiots who can completely miss the obvious in attempting to bash rivals at every irrelevent turn.

By the way, you know how the neoconservatives always claim that they never went to college because it's "just liberal brainwashing"? To me, that just screams "Sour grapes".

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[tempest303 (259600)]

Yes, indeed, let the Bush bashing begin.

anyone on the conservative or Republican side of the spectrum is a greedy, money grubbing liar who would just LOVE to see an end to all environmental concerns

Anyone is free to make up their own minds about this, but allow me to illustrate a point:

Republicans are pushing for voluntary environmental controls [cbsnews.com]. However, in publicly owned companies, the primary objective is to increase shareholder value. While it is an extreme example, a publicly held company could, in theory, be sued for complying with such regulations, as it would pull away capital but does not increase shareholder value in any way.

So how is it that the "voluntary controls" Republicans are doing something for the environment? I'm not calling the Democrats saints, either, but let's not disingenuously pretend that Bush or his friends give a rat's ass about the planet, eh?

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[Dirtside (91468)]

I'm not going to praise what I think is a bad idea. I love the concept of nuclear power from an air-quality standpoint, but the incredibly dangerous and voluminous waste it produces is more than I can ignore.

I'm not sure how valid an argument it is to say that nuclear plants invariably produce "dangerous and voluminous waste." Dangerous, yes, I don't think anyone will argue that; but voluminous? Compared to the amount of waste that (e.g.) coal plants produce, nuclear plants produce a tiny amount of waste per megawatt. The waste is probably more "dangerous" per unit mass than coal waste, but the overall danger per megawatt is what's relevant.

Not only are the fuel rods dangerous, but all the parts involved in the heating of the water, etc, become dangerously irradiated and must be stored in similar conditions to the fuel rods.

There are a lot of nuclear plant designs that don't use fuel rods or water. Pebble bed reactors, for example, use tiny pebbles of uranium encased in extremely durable ceramics, and the heated fluid is *air*, not water. The air is typically passed through a heat exchanger to heat up water that then goes off and does useful work, non-radioactively.

PBRs are the type I'm most familiar with, but there are other designs (e.g. CANDU) that are similarly less dangerous, more stable, and less waste-creating than your standard ol' fashioned water-mediated fuel rod reactor.

While I'm sure it's theoretically possible to store this stuff safely, knowing the inherent laziness and stupidities of large corporations and governments, I have a hard time believing that it will actually be done right, and that's more risk than I'm willing to take.

Yes, but that's true of *any* kind of power plant. By that logic, we shouldn't have power plants at all. :)

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[by Anonymous Coward]

The "Union of Concerned Scientists" has been a liberal activist organization throughout its history,

I know what you mean. All those Nobelists in the Union of Concerned Scientsts are just hacks. Heck, you can't even get a Nobel prize in the physical sciences without being a liberal, everyone knows that.

Sheesh.

If you'd like to criticize the substance of their report, indicating what they did wrong and why their conclusions are flawed, that'd be a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. Until then, though, all you've contributed is ad hominem.

Put another way, your response is the equivalent of suggesting that General Relativity must be wrong because Einstein abused his wife.

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[Jerk City Troll (661616)]

I never ceases to amaze me how so many people frown upon protecting the world we live in, the air we breath, the water we drink, and the food we eat. "Liberal agenda" my ass. This is about our survival as a species. You would hope that the people expressing deep concern over matters of the environment would receive thanks and praise for the efforts. Nevertheless, there is no shortage of greedy, wholeheartedly selfish people out there out to ensure their own personal and short-term gain, the consequences be damned. but then, I suppose I'm just some unamerican hippie...

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[BeBoxer (14448)]

anyone on the conservative or Republican side of the spectrum is a greedy, money grubbing liar

I wouldn't say anyone one the conservative side of the spectrum fits that description. Hell, I'm fairly conservative on a number of topics as are quite a few of my friends. But the handful of people running the Republican party right now are in fact greedy, money grubbing liars.

And one of their hallmarks is using arguments which are known logical fallacies. Since you seem to be doing the same thing, I'll address them.

1. In the last 15 years, the majority of most of these scientist's time has been spend under a Democratic president;

There is nothing in the article relating to 15 years. I would probably classify this as "Unrepresentative Sample". You clearly chose 15 as it is the largest number for which your statement is true. Change that number to 5 years, or 20 years, and the opposite is true.

2. The "Union of Concerned Scientists" has been a liberal activist organization blah blah

This is simply an ad hominem attack. Good for emotional appeal, but logicially it's meaningless.

3. Most scientists in FWS reported no such pressure;

Does this even try to advocate anything?

I mean, economic development is always bad, and any edict on "endangered species", no matter how shaky, is always good, right?

And a perfect example of a straw man argument. No body is actually claiming that economic development is always bad. Well, except for the neo-cons when they want to beat up a straw man so they can feel superior.

All of that, and no where in your post is there anything which could actually be considered a reasonable argument that either a) political pressure is not being applied or b) it's OK that political pressure is being applied. Just the usual cloud of fallacies trying to obscure the actual issue at hand.

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[ikkonoishi (674762)]

I love the numbers of this survey.

1400 polled 400 responded.

Of those 400 46% said that they were being pressured so 184.

The story really is 13.14% of scientists polled agreed with our leading questions. And look at some of the actual questions and responses

24. In my experience, scientific documents generally reflect technically rigorous evaluations of impacts to listed species and associated habitats.
strongly agree agree don't know disagree strongly disagree
7.5% 54.3% 13.8% 18.1% 4.3% 25.

USFWS strives to substantially incorporate independent peer review in formulating and validating scientific findings.
strongly agree agree don't know disagree strongly disagree
7.7% 52.2% 16.4% 18.8% 3.6%

26. I have been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a USFWS scientific document.
frequently occasionally seldom never not applicable overall
2.2% 8.9% 9.2% 68.8% 10.4%

Overall the polls show a good amount of the usual worker problems (We need more money, we don't trust upper management, ect...), but the part about economic and political pressure doesn't specify about who is applying the pressure.
They could just as easilly be getting pressure from groups like PETA to increase the number of species declared endangered.

Re:Still don't get it?

[by Anonymous Coward]

All that matters anymore is that the trains run on time.

If there's anything that history has taught me, it's that it doesn't matter if the trains actually run on time. All that matters is that you say that the trains run on time, and keep repeating this over and over again until people actually believe it.

Re:Still don't get it?

[Fjandr (66656)]

Exactly as you said: the trains run on time. The trains have always run on time. I'm glad you agree that the trains run on time. The trains will always run on time. Thank you, move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Still don't get it?

[Jack Auf (323064)]

> America has become a fascist state

Why yes, yes it has: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Re:Still don't get it?

[TeraCo (410407)]

That's a standard government trick. You pass a whole bunch of bills right before you leave power, so that you look good; usually these bills involve dumping enormous amounts of money into social programs. The next administration has to repeal them all (usually because they're completely impractical), and has to look like jerks for it.

Holy Crap, attach a turbine to you and we've got power, you're spinning that fast.

Not one paragraph up you were painting Clinton as evil for not doing it, and painting Bush as great for then doing it. Phase forward a few seconds and we now have you saying "OMFG it is totally inpractical, that's why he was scum for implementing it.".

PS: Before you accuse me of Democratic bias for pointing out your horrificly obvious flipflopping, I'm not even American.

Re:Still don't get it?

[refactored (260886)]

America has become a facist state?

Umm, by the stated definitions of the poster children of fascism, old Benito and his Chum, (I dare not say the N-word less Godwin's wrath smite me), fascism is about merging the interests of big business and the state.

Tell me, when last did Washington _ever_ do anything that wasn't in the interests of some Big Business or the other?

Re:Still don't get it?

[Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)]

America has become a facist state?

Hey, someone almost asking for me to post my favorite quote:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

While the actual author of that quote is almost certainly Giovani Gentile (a political philosopher from whom Benito borrowed liberally), it's close enough for slashdot.

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[michaelggreer (612022)]

Look, there are all sorts of groups that have agendas. That does not mean, a priori, that everything they say is bullshit. UCS is pretty well respected, and you just blow them off 'cause you disagree with their political perspective. That's why I posted that reference to the pundits Bush has been paying off: they too just pile on anyone who disagrees with Bush. Relax, man, and have a real political discussion, instead of just assuming liberals are such monsters. Discuss the issue.

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin!

[michaelggreer (612022)]

You are totally correct in saying that science cannot answer many technological and political questions. Endangered species, stem cell research, abortion, cloning: these are ethical questions. Science can only contribute fact.

However, there is one thing which science is fantastic at. All worthy science must be reproducible and disputable. This is what makes it science. Because of this, it doesn't matter what the biases of the scientists are. This is the breakthrough that made positivist science paramount.

Don't trust scientists, but do trust the scientific process, because it doesn't trust anyone.

I think people got in a stir over this because it is not the first case of this administration pushing facts around, and pushing scientists around. They seem to like science's authoritative voice, but not the multiple voices it turns out to actually be.

Re:Surprised? No.

[Nefarious Wheel (628136)]

The Lysenko story all over again? Anyone remember how we crowed over the fact that the USSR had it's own "science of the state"?

How to let your enemy win, in one easy lesson -- become them.

Re:and the Canadian Mad Cows are extremely Virulen

[saskboy (600063)]

There were under 800 cattle from mad cow affected countries imported into Canada before the importations were stopped. And the US imported over 1600 cattle from affected countries.

Yet Canada has found 3, before they entered the human or animal food chains, and the US found one after it was partly processed. Tell us who is doing a better job of detecting mad cow in North America?

Re:Easy to point the finger.

[oldmanmtn (33675)]

Jeebus, you're an idiot. Nobody said anything about stopping all construction or all use of wood.

There are some trees that probably shouldn't be cut down and some places where we shouldn't be building new houses. That doesn't mean we have to revert to the stone age.

But hell, I guess that's what passes for rational argument among right wingers these days. Bush has people lie about inconvenient facts. Since his mindless followers don't have that kind of power, they resort to building strawmen to tear down.

Lying

[peachpuff (638856)]

What's your point? That it's okay to lie about the cost if you think it's worth it? From the article:

"More than 20% of survey responders reported they had been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information." However, 69% said they had never been given such a directive. And, although more than half of the respondents said they had been ordered to alter findings to lessen protection of species, nearly 40% said they had never been required to do so."

If I'm parsing the phony "on the other hand" journalism correctly,

• About 30% were told to alter data
• About 60% were told to alter the bottom-line conclusions

That's not acceptable. I don't care how cozy your house is.

Re:Another nail in the coffin of journalism.

[TellarHK (159748)]

Actually, having seen the parts of my family that follow the "red state" ideals over the course of the last election cycle, I'm thoroughly convinced that most of the people in the "red states" that voted for Bush with such vigor, really did not seem to care that they were being lied to.

I'll use my own mother as an example. She's generally a very level-headed person, but when it comes down to politics she -loves- burying her head in the sand and seeing things as a "black or white, good or evil" issue. And I suspect most mothers are the same way once they're close to sixty. The entire process the right-wing republicans have been using is to make everything a soundbite, a good vs. evil / us against them / with or against us argument. You cannot possibly tell me with a straight face that the democrats were ever this blatant, misleading or dense about anything remotely close to this kind of manipulative behavior.

The answer "But Clinton did it!" does not make it right, and on those occasions when the democrats get caught pulling this nonsense, they should get bitched out too. If anyone ever showed me evidence of them doing it on one tenth of the scale this administration's been caught in just the past -month-, I'd be one of the first ones bitching. It's just much, much easier to give the republicans a black eye for this shit because they're such masters of it. Did Clinton stand behind repeating grids of soundbite text at -every- appearance that didn't have him in front a huge flag instead? Did his administration bribe columnists to push his agenda? (If he did, please cite a Reuters/AP/UPI link so I can learn about it.)

These same people thought there were WMD's. These same people STILL fucking think they exist.

People like having things laid out for them in black and white, they don't like to think about them. Nobody wants to waste the time and energy to contemplate world affairs because they can't change them. So why worry? They put their trust in the person that makes the plainest-spoken argument, not even giving enough of a shit to think he's wrong.

Yes, there are some people out there that follow the Republican way of thought and actually give thought TO that belief. Unfortunately, what they don't do is win elections. John McCain and his type of Republican are an endangered species. The neoconservative wing has discovered how to pull all the puppets into line, and will cut loose the rogues it can't control.

Re:Another nail in the coffin of journalism.

[coaxial (28297)]

<sarcasm>Why do you hate America?</sarcasm>

Yup. You might be interested in the book What's a Matter with Kansas? [amazon.com] It talks about how the poorest and least educated vote against their own interests all in the name of the "culture wars". i.e. Vote to end abortion. Receive the elimination of Social Security.

Re:Property rights are NOT a "business interest"

[MilenCent (219397)]

There ARE egregious examples of corporations overrunning the natural habitat of endangered wildlife to squeeze a quick buck out of the land. This is NOT one of those stories.

But it IS a story of the Fish and Wildlife Service cooking science in favor of non-objective interests. That is damning, regardless of whether those interests are business or personal.

Scientists???

[PaulBu (473180)]

Hey, those guys and girl are public sector employees (Dept. of Fish and Game, I think it was called, though now it is apparently Fish and Wildlife Service). Think of the last time you visited your loval DMV office -- maybe most of them have THAT particular type of personalty, you know what I am talking about. In any case, not too many are going to bite the hand which gives them nice govt. job (with GREAT benefits) when there is some "pressure" to look another way. On the other hand, they feel quite free to bitch in an (anonymous?) survey, no, it is almost impossible to fire them!

I guess the term "scientist" lost it luster when it stopped being applied to indepedently wealthy gentlemen with curiosity about how the World works (or ones so smart that wealthy private persons just feel like funding their work) and started being applied to everyone with some education and certain level in the society. I wish we would go back to 18th century in the way we do science. Otherwise it is all fake, serving this or that special groop (whoever pays).

And yes, technically my job title is "Scientist", working for one of the big defence contractors. No, I do not do "science" in the original sense of this word. But looking back at the University life -- it was prostitution as well... ;-)

Paul B.

Re:typical republican response

[Jerf (17166)]

remove politics

I was with you, right up until you suggested that we remove humans from science.

What, you don't think that's what you said? Well, you'll understand eventually. Either that, or show me a group bigger than 100 people that has "no politics" in which case I'll concede I might be wrong.... but even if you show me such a group it'll still remain the more probable outcome that you are simply blind to the politics. (Evidence: If you really think it's only "Republicans" bending science, it's probably because the bending done by "Democrats" is invisible to you. Caveat: The terms Republican and Democrat are not really meaningful in this context anyhow [jerf.org]; I'm borrowing your particular meanings.)

(When people say "remove politics from the system", what they are really saying, even if they don't realize it, is that the system should align with their politics, which are of course not politics, but merely and quite obviously the truth. Were it only so simple...)

This is not to say the diagnosis is inaccurate... oh, you've oversimplified to the point of effective absurdity but that's just what happens in a short Slashdot post, I have too but at least I labelled some of it. I'm just saying that you might as well phrase your "solution" as "Booga booga, grunt, wallabie wallabie smooger!" in terms of the useful, implementable solution content it contains.

Re:Interesting that I DO agree with your points...

[damiangerous (218679)]

Anyther perspective for you -- I grew up in Soviet Union (decidedly non-capitalist country) and the environment there was, to put it mildly, REALLY bad. Free society (which some of us equate with capitalism, obviously in the different sense of the word that you used in your subj) seems to be doing much better.

It's basic human nature. People value what's theirs. All it takes is to look at any public park and see the trash blowing through it (often dumped within feet of a trash can). Yet these same people who will toss a burger wrapper out of their car at 60mph will be just as likely to go home and obsessively groom their lawns and maintain their homes. It's the same thing on a corporate scale. "Big corporations" don't dump on and despoil land they own and intend to keep (it's worth money, they don't want to ruin it). Dumping always happens on public land somewhere. It sounds counter productive to the environmental movement, but the best way to preserve land is to privatize it. Public maintainership doesn't work. When everyone's responsible, no one's responsible ultimately. We see it every day in every aspect of our lives, yet refuse to see it in the environment.

Re:Explain to me about WMD's

[Homology (639438)]

Am I missing something? Did not every serious observer, from John Kerry to MI5, believe that Saddam had WMD's prior to the war? Are you saying that they were all so stupid and gullible that they could be misled by the smooth lies of the inarticulate smirking chimp moron Bushitler?

They where either gullible or partaking in spreading the lie. With alot of help of the US corporate media as well.

Those that where part of the actual arms inspection in Iraq noted that Iraq did not have any WMD capability, or it was very unlikely. The head of UN arms inspection more or less said so in his report to the Security Council.

The WDM lie, like the lie that Saddam was behind 9/11, was just pretexts to invade and occupy a country in order to control it's oil resources.