U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Finding 1171
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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh No!! (Score:3, Funny)
This news in: Slashdot Editors Report being told by the cultocracy to where aim the slashdot effect.
Slashdot, the Weapon of Mass Download.
Re:Oh No!! (Score:4, Funny)
Which is why I do my part by never RTFA. Mostly cuz the articles are usually basically what the summary says, e.g. "windows teh cool, SCO rulez, linux teh bad!"...
The comments are what I come for
Tom
Re:Oh No!! (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new censored, creationist supporting theocratic "scientists"
Not really news... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not really news... (Score:4, Funny)
G.W. Bush: Proof that you only have to fool half of the people for about a month to win a second term.
Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Same story about "Global Warming". You have scientists that are paid by the oil companies to deny that global temperatures are increasing, when you have other "no biased' scientists that are giving direct proof of anthropogenic interference to the global climate system.
Scientists??? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Another nail in the coffin of journalism. (Score:4, Insightful)
Every year I fear more and more for our country, and every year the average American just seems to be that much more baffled by bullshit. We're never going to see anything resembling what we -thought- was a "clean" electoral process again, I'm afraid.
Re:Another nail in the coffin of journalism. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, just because Bush is a moron and a psychopath, doesn't mean that the opposition candidate (admit it, there's only one that matters) is somehow a good guy. To borrow a metaphor, we just vote for the lizards because if we don't, the other lizard will win.
Re:Another nail in the coffin of journalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Another nail in the coffin of journalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
[...]
Don't write this behavior off to stupidity. These people are voting based on their personal ethics, not their pocketbooks.
My point is every election cycle the Republicans promise to do end abortion, or put state led prayer in public school, or prevent gays from marrying, or outlaw flag burning, or whatever, and yet every election cycle they don't. Instead they push their crony-capitalist agenda that results in lowering standards of living for the majority of Americans.
The reason why the Republicans never do anything about these social issues is that they need them to promote the idea of besiegement among their grassroot supporters. If Republicans ever did outlaw abortion, as they could today given that anti-abortion supporters currently control all three branches of the federal government, then the Republicans would lose one of their most powerful rallying cries of the past 30 years, and they're not about to do that. Instead the Republicans use abortion to get out the vote, and turn around and use that power for their wealthy backers.
Every year, the Republican grassroots are worse off than the year before. Workers are laid off, as companies take advantage of promiscuous trade policies. Every year, education cut is, so there is less opportunity of the worker to be retrained and get a new job. Every year welfare is cut, so now the worker can barely feed his kids. Every year health care costs rise. Every year, the worker falls further and further behind. Every year laws and programs that would help him are weakened. And every year, the worker laments that this year is worse than the previous one. Yet, every election he happily votes for the person who helped put him in that situation because THIS TIME he's going to "keep the sodomites down". He never realizes he's being taken advantage of, and that is dumb.
Finally, I would imagine that the cost of living in Kansas is lower than many other regions of the country. $30k might not support one person in New York City, but would probably be a nice wage in a small Kansas town.
I didn't make a comparison of the purchasing power of x dollars in one part of the country, than another. "Rich" and "poor" are relative terms, of course they are going to be defined for whatever domain (in this case geographic) you're talking about. For your information, according to the census bureau [census.gov], the median household income is $40k, with a mean of $50k.
Here's a Kansan example of what I meant by the poor voting against their own interests. Kiowa County has a median household income 22% below the state average, 29% of which comes from government programs. Since 1995, it has received $40 million from farm subsidies alone Yet, that county is so desperate to get "big government off its back", in 1992, it voted to secede from Kansas. Every time they vote to eliminte these programs, they are quite literally voting to take money out of their own pockets.
As for education, don't confused schooling with learning. School is an excellent way to learn some ideas, but a very poor way to learn other ideas: Why do you think certain professions require apprenticeship? The average fulltime farmer isn't some ignorant country hick: He's a small businessman who needs to understand farming, science, finance and even a bit of law. There's a lot more to the job then digging a hole in the ground and dropping a few seeds.
It's quite interesting that you brought up the stereotype that everyone in Kansas is a farmer. They're not. In fact, one of the largest employers in Kansas is Boeing.
What really has touched me off about your "farmer's aren't dumb" comment, is that I'm willing to bet that between the two us, only one of us grew up with a cornfield less than a 100 feet from his bedroom window.
Scientific honesty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope... (Score:4, Interesting)
Do not you think that there were plenty of astroLOGISTS at the time who might have noticed that things do not exactly add up up there, but just were not interested in following THAT route? Kepler might as well decide to be one of them (and forever forgotten), in which case another bright guy with access to the same technology (best at that time) would publish the same observations.
The problem is that now almost all science is funded from "public funds", so there is really no incentive to go against what the public believes (and public ius represented by the bureocrats in Washington, you know...
Paul B.
Surprised? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's so encouraging to know that this administration so thoroughly distorts and perverts "facts" that would potentially interfere with business interests.
Intelligence, economics, science ...yep, they've got all the bases covered. Covered in fantasy, but covered nonetheless.
Re:Surprised? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
How to let your enemy win, in one easy lesson -- become them.
Re:Surprised? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
First, the question posed had no time period specified. It was simply "have you ever experienced this", not have you experienced it under the current administration. Anyone who's been employed for 8 years or longer has spent more time under another (Democratic) administration than the current one.
And, of course the Clinton administration would never [commondreams.org], ever [mindfully.org] put politics before policy. I love how these debates always degenerate into "your side is evil, my side is pure."
Welcome to the future of capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
A biologist in Alaska wrote in response to the survey: "It is one thing for the department to dismiss our recommendations, it is quite another to be forced (under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter to our best professional judgment."
What's worse is that the American people didn't care to open their eyes to this and get rid of W when they had the chance. The scientists can only fight for so long before the next, brain washed generation is far more willing to churn out whatever studies are requested for the right price. Science is becoming another consumable, to be bought and sold like oil and food.
I guess there might be some hope left, but I'd look for a lot more of this in the next 4 years. I don't forsee a Worker's Revolution either, but I think we can do better and leave some things as unbuyable. Maybe I'm just a member of a dying breed that holds onto a bit of dignity. I mean, liars are going to have more money, and morals no longer seem to matter in our reltavistic society. I guess relativistic science is next, and I don't mean Special Relativity.
Re:Interesting that I DO agree with your points... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Sad reality (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Sad reality (Score:3, Insightful)
But on the plus side, 200 researchers came forward rather than buckle. That's actually amazing.
typical republican response (Score:4, Insightful)
typical republican response:
its not happening.
it is happening, but clinton did it first.
left wing media conspiracy to slam bush. (which is pretty funny considering the whole talon news thing.)
cite another left wing conspiracy. BOOGIE MEN EVERYWHERE!
cite michael crichton.
cite a volcano! think of how many spotted owls have been killed by volcanos! think of how much C02 volcanos release.
like humans can actually damage nature, its so big!
but economic growth is important.
when the real response should be: really? lets fix this. remove politics from the system.
Re:typical republican response (Score:5, Insightful)
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:typical republican response (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey jonpublic, looks like you were right.
Actually what they're saying is that they expect the scientists to follow the scientific method because the method isn't affected by politics or personal bias.
Just like you would expect a racist policeman to enforce the law without bias against race, or like you would expect an anti-abortion judge to respect a woman's right to abortion, you should also expect a scientist to devise experiments and report their findings without bias.
Humans being humans, sometimes personal bias does intrude on the job and they don't do what they're supposed to do. The policeman unfairly treats a particular race, the judge prevents a legal abortion, and the scientist gives false results that satisfies their own personal bias. But that simply makes them bad policemen, bad judges, and bad scientists. These people do not last long. Their inability to do their job is eventually discovered.
So when the grandparent said "remove politics from the system" they weren't being naive, like you seem to think, but they were instead wisely recognising that politics has no place in science. The method was devised to keep our bias and the science separate. Good scientists produce results that disagree with their politics. Bad scientists hide or falsify results to appease their politics. That's what this article was about - scientists being told to falsify their results - because the politics was intruding on the science. Fortunately these were good scientists who blew the whistle on the politicians attempting to pervert science.
The answer isn't to throw your hands in the air and say "everybody is biased", as you have done, because that naively assumes that the scientists allow their bias to decide their findings. As you should now be aware, because I have explained it to you so clearly, that is precisely what the scientist avoids by following the method.
let us make one think perfectly clear... (Score:4, Insightful)
A few issues (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
You can't assume anything about the non-responders (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
And how is 210+ out of 420 scientists not "sensational"?
Re:A few issues (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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) (Score:5, Insightful)
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) (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:The March of Freedom (OT) (Score:4, Insightful)
You left off two words... for themselves. Very few people have truly fought for the freedom of others, and I'm not seeing it from the terrorists.
Seriously, that changes everything, effectively invalidates the rest of your message, and if you don't see that you need those words to make a true statement, look around you, for Pete's sake. I'd lay money that you can name ten ways the "bad guys who support the war" (or whoever) are trying to restrict your freedom; in the opposite context you know that's trivially true. Why are you so swift to forget it when it comes to the terrorists?
The terrorists can, for instance, just go fuck themselves if they are fighting for the "freedom" to repress women, which is indeed one of the many things they are fighting for; this is essentially empirical truth. They may be fighting for "freedom" but that is not enough to be noble, or worth rooting for.
Re:The March of Freedom (OT) (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. You said muslims instead of terrorists. And people wonder why Muslims are upset by American attitudes against them. You are proposing to kill people solely for their beliefs. In what way do you differ from the people you think should be killed?
About 6 million Jews were exterminated because of ignorant people like yourself who will believe generalizations of whole peoples.
Chocolate rations are up! (Score:5, Funny)
The slow downward spiral (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The slow downward spiral (Score:3, Informative)
Statute of limitations on reality? (Score:4, Insightful)
The sad or annoying thing is that at least a few of them do know better. Dick Cheney, for example. However, the only concern of those few is with cashing the checks before the reality bounce happens. That's not a question of a statute of limitations, but rather the post facto law thing. Sure, in the future people will regard them as a bunch of criminals--but too late.
Great work, Americans (Score:4, Funny)
Great choice of president, by the way. And secretary of state. And secretary of 'defence'. And
Read the source instead of the article for truth (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a link to the survey questions and results:
http://ucsusa.org/documents/FWS_questions_and_r
Reading the actual results of the survey tells a far different story than that reported by those conducting the survey - or the LA times who seem to have just regurgitated the PEER/UCS press release without doing any kind of actual reporting.
Based on their own survey results most respondants feel the opposite of what is being portrayed in this story. Most of them are happy with the FWS and don't feel pressured.
Of course also keep in mind that the FWS told it's employees not to respond to this survey (most likely because they knew UCS/PEER were just looking to create another hit piece since that's what PEER does full-time.) So those who did respond are already those who aren't good at following directions and are probably upset with their jobs for one reason or another.
That this even counts as news is either a testament to how liberally biased the LA times is or just how poor "news" reporting in this country has become.
Only one thing left to do (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
science is science (Score:4, Insightful)
Junk science (Score:5, Insightful)
"But when it comes to altering data, that is a serious matter. I am really sorry to hear that scientists working for the service feel they have to do that. Changing facts to fit the politics -- that is a very unhealthy thing. If I were a scientist in that position I would just refuse to do it."
The "scientist" who alters data is simply not a scientist. Period. It's like a preacher who is an atheist. It simply doesn't make sense. Science is all about the data, and facts - even if your results fly into the face of your hypothesis, you have to accept them and find another explanation for them - not alter them.
If politicians found out that scientists cannot be pressured they'd have to stop doing it. You shouldn't be able to "rent" a PhD and tell them what to say. I might as well buy my degree on the internet if I let that be done to me. But there are always spineless individuals in every field and they give the rest of us a bad name.
Good for them for going public with this - one has to ask: exactly how long has this been going on, and where else has this junk science been taking place...
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
I attended two state GOP conventions and one national GOP convention during the mid-late 1980s. I saw the takeover in action. It is real.
I am no longer directly affiliated with the Republican party, but I still have a decent grapevine through old friends and even older family. The incidental party affiliation of "most of the people [you] know" is entirely irrelevant to the matter of who formulates the planks in the party platform in exchange for delivering a highly dependable demographic bloc on election day. What James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, and the Wildmons say today will be blended with prettified supply-side economics and become the official GOP talking points six months from now.
The older Republicans were more moderate and accepted this as an expedient trade-off; the establishment only pushed the issues just enough to guarantee electoral victory. The reason George W. Bush arouses such instinctive loathing from "the Left" and such devotion from "the Right" is that he is simply the first of what will be many more generations who believe their own hype. Their party maturation began in the middle of the bargaining process between the plutocrats and theocrats, and therefore they do not maintain an acute awareness of the situation as a calculated political convenience. They have imbued their economic policies have the righteous conviction of morality, and thus they find it natural to make national policy serve their moral ends. We have been witnessing the modern birth of a religious tradition which combines spirituality with economics.
He who has an ear, let him hear.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Funny)
Are you a professional idiot?
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Informative)
So your 15 year time frame is a straw-man argument if there ever was one. Similar concerns have been voiced by many other science-interest groups; read pretty much any Scientific American editorial (or, even National Geographic) to learn more.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Thanks for the interesting tidbit though.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:3, Informative)
And you're right the poster was planning ahead, but there was no need to make it Republican/Democrat. Both comments you linked talked about "Bush" and the "Bush administration"; in my opinion, dividing it into parties is useless (since party definitions are so vague and candidates vary widely.)
He was defending the Republican party, when really he needed to defend Bush to be effective in the main thread. Luckily I think we've avoided a useless party-war thread here...
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans essentially stand for lowering taxes, decreasing the size/amount of government and government regulation, etc, etc. Recently they've also seemed to take a very socially conservative point of view (ie: wanting to regulate the private life), which is somewhat ironic. However, this may just be a momentary trend and go away in the future, as Republican ideals are consistently in favor of less Federal Government intervention.
Democrats essentially stand for government programs that benefit the people (though this is not always what we get in practice!), higher taxes for the rich (to support these new government programs) and Federal regulation on anything they believe needs it (which could be quite the slippery slope toward socialism).
And there are more than two parties: there's the Libertarian party, the Green party, hell, we even have the Communist and Nazi Party in the US. If you don't like those two parties, start your own! Until you get a moderate amount of votes for president, you won't recieve any funding to help you run your party, but there you have it.
Also, even if you belong to a party, you don't have to vote for them if you don't want to. You can write in "Micky Mouse" on the ballot if it really struck your fancy. It's your choice.
The big reason that these two standpoints are mentioned is because our country has, apparently, become completely incapable of respecting the intricasy of any argument, and tries to boil everything down to two base-line viewpoints. Everything gets simpliified down to sound bites and harped on and used as war cries, regardless of whether they even truly have any meaning for their particular point.
For example, we have the "anti partial birth abortion" people vs. "pro choice". They argued back and forth for weeks/months, but no one seemed to notice that the "pro choice" people weren't necessarily for murdering fully formed fetuses, per se, but only in wanting to allow the mother, if medically necessary, an "escape route", so to speak. I don't want to get into details on which side is right or wrong, but the point is, "pro choice" is a far cry from "wanting to make sure the mother's life isn't in danger by not allowing this". But instead, it was made to sound like these people wanted to go about aborting fetuses willy nilly, just for fun. It's really dishonest - and I don't blame the Republicans/Conservatives for this - it's rampant throughout America, and, in my opinion, a serious, terminal disease to the political process in America.
(Please note that I am not a political scientist, just a geek who takes politics very seriously. I'm sure Republicans would try to paint themselves in a different way and Democrats as well, but it's really difficult to determine what is fact and what is an offshoot of their respective Public Relations campaigns.)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
just like the bush administration alledgedly has the motivation to alter the data to further their goals. UCS ALSO has the SAME EXACT motivation to modify the report linked to in the article to further their goals. Science and polotics CANNOT be allowed to mix
Does this mean that the bush adminstration didn't do these things they were accuse
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Interesting)
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
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since we're exposing sources... (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
Must be tough keeping all those organizations strait.
Re:Heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what you're saying is that you're gratuitously bashing UCS and PEER. I'm sure that makes you feel good, but why does it make UCS wrong?
And for the record, I'm sure their findings are just fine. Funny, that's not what you implied earlier: But since it's an organization with a decidedly and unabashedly liberal political agenda, I guess they must be telling the truth 100%
As I said, post a fact if you want someone to care. I'm not slag
Still don't get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush sucks -- he sucks really hard. Just because Clinton was every bit as big an asshole, doesn't make Bush any less an asshole.
Face it -- America has become a fascist state, where science is censored in favour of business interests. All that matters anymore is that the trains run on time. The Democrats and the Republicans are both equally culpable, because they are exactly the same party. There's no difference between
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:3, Funny)
America has become a land ruled by the sole commandment "thou shalt make money for thy CEO". Anything else goes out the window. Scientific truth is just the latest victim of many.
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you high? Sure, they are very similar in terms of vapidity and love of spin, and are both beholden to (largely different) monied 'special interests', but try looking at *what actually happened* under recent Democrat and Republican administrations regarding... say... environmental policy. Bush II's enviro officials have me harkening back to the good days of James Watt...
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Funny)
So, in other words, you're definitely a Democrat.
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why yes, yes it has: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:4, Insightful)
America has become a facist state? I'm all with you on the "both parties are assholes" thing, but who the fuck modded this post +5 insightful? Fascism does not mean "really annoying" or "extra mean", it is an oppressive system of goverment that in the past has had a penchant for murdering its own citizens on the scale of millions. You demonstate your magnificent ignorance by claiming the US is such.
If this WERE a fascist state, there wouldn't be any "pressure" for people to alter their findings: they would just be rounded up and killed or jailed. Fascist states have murdered people on a horrifying scale, and you using the term to villify your political enemies is a gross abuse of the word.
Also, the Dems and Rebubs are NOT the same party, by any stretch of the imagination. They advocate very divergent positions. Just because you and I disagree with BOTH sets of ideas doesn't mean they are the same ideas.
However, when you say this:
Clinton may have talked the liberal talk, and Bush may talk the conservative talk, but their policies are virtually indistinguishable.
Then I am in agreement with you. See also: This [shamusyoung.com].
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Still don't get it? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why I voted for Nader. I've had four years to see how wrong that idea was.
Yes, Clinton was a Corporate Republican (TM) in many ways. One reason I didn't vote for him was the story about how Governor Clinton let Purdue Chicken turn an Arkansas river into, as the Fugs sung about the Mississippi, a "River of Shit".
But, no. I honestly believe, with history and political science B.A.s, that there has never been a worse presidency than W. Not Harding. Not Benjamin Harrison, Not Grant. Not John Tyler. This really is a fascist cult falling down the rabbit hole. Imagine where we would be if we had a president who never smoked or drank on principle and could speak coherently without a teleprompter like Hitler. Instead of a not very bright narcissistic dry-drunk spoiled rich kid cocooned in his "happy place" bubble. We lucked out there. But if Clinton and Gore were sliding down the fascist slope, Bush embraces it with apocalyptic joy and that is a difference. Since the odds are against me having a handful of decades left, personally I would have much preferred a slow decay than a headlong gallop into madness.
And, sadly, it doesn't look like the trains will run at all if Bush has anything to say about it.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking back, it seems the UCS was correct. There is global warming, that is a fact. Almost no scientist will deny that fact.
www.archiphysics.com
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
"To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home--including safe, clean nuclear energy."
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Which group gets heard more?
The people who actually care about the environment should worry about getting their acts together. Until they do that they will continue to be dismissed for the nutjobs a great many of them are.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
Similar rhetoric is used to defend the patriot act and DMCA (this is about our survival as a country, survival of the economy, respectively). A noble cause is not enough, you have to put together a workable plan that doesn't end up destroying people's livelihood in the process. It's easy to say "Stop Greenhouse Gases", it's hard to figure out how exactly to do so without causing economic collapse.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because as we all know, every single issue can and should be immediately broken down into a Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal dichotomy. Once you have the dichotomy you can then immediately discern what everyone's views on the issue must be based solely on which side of the Republican/Conservative dichotomy they fall on any other issue.
There's a saying:
"The more issues a person tries to arbitrarily shoehorn down into a Liberal/Conservative dichotomy, the more certain you can be that the person is an American."
Once you're done with the pointless partisan bickering that, frankly, has no real bearing on the issue at hand, feel free to actually get back to discussing the topic.
Jedidiah.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
Science is the most powerful way of developing new and accurate information about the world we live in. By all means, make policy on the basis of more than science, but don't subvert science to advance wishful thinking. Everyone loses that way.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Let the Bush apologias begin! (Score:4, Interesting)
"The facts are clearly biased against President Bush"
- (paraphrase) John Stewart, The Daily Show
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:and the Canadian Mad Cows are extremely Virulen (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Easy to point the finger. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lying (Score:5, Insightful)
What's your point? That it's okay to lie about the cost if you think it's worth it? From the article:
If I'm parsing the phony "on the other hand" journalism correctly,
That's not acceptable. I don't care how cozy your house is.
Re:Property rights are NOT a "business interest" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.