From Newsday.com
There’s this:
And tbis:
So what do you think? Is valid scientific info being censored? Are qualified experts being replaced by ideologues and people with conflicting interests? Or is it much ado about nothing?
Um, this is the same Bush administration that wants to name the Pray-For-Your-PMS-And-You-Will-Be-Healed fellow to chair the FDA’s panel on Women’s Health Policy?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.fda.tm/index.html
“Ideology over science”? Naaaahhh…
In addition, they said, information showing that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer was removed from a National Institutes of Health Web site. “Scientific information … has been removed, apparently because it does not fit with the administration’s ideological agenda,” Waxman and Brown wrote.
Reminds me of a car I saw last weekend on the interstate. Covered with pro-life slogans and bumper stickers and the phrase “Abortion causes breast cancer” painted on the door.
HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said it is Thompson’s prerogative to appoint whomever he chooses for advisory committees. By contrast, he said, Waxman and Brown "would like all of us to follow their agenda, their liberal agenda, on these issues."
I’m not sure, what exactly is liberal about wanting accurate information to be made available? Isn’t that in the best interests of both liberals and conservatives (although I probably should amend that to moderate liberals and moderate conservatives)?
I see two possibilities here. Either they truly believe that any scientific finding that conflicts with their politics must be incorrect, or they feel that there are some things that us rabble are better off not knowing. I don’t know which possibility is scarier.
I’m probably not very qualified to speak on this subject, but an idea occurred to me and I thought some of you might like to shake it around a little bit.
If you start with the premise that people need to be held to a specific moral standard, doesn’t that justify such practices as those alleged above? Perhaps I should provide an example.
It is widely believed that extremely fast driving can be hazardous to one’s health as well as that of others. Government policy, therefore, is that extremely fast driving on public roads is prohibited. Companies like McLaren are not given grants to figure out how to make the F1 go faster on public roads. Moreover, the effects of extremely high-speed accidents are not generally studied by the government. The NHTSA doesn’t commission studies to see whether a particular road surfacing technique will make roads safer at 150 mph. And furthermore, if the feds happen to come across a discovery that would somehow facilitate high-speed driving, they probably wouldn’t be disposed to make such information widely available.
I suppose that if there were a larger group of pro-speeders out there, they might argue that the government is withholding information which could potentially save lives, and a lot of time on the road.
Okay, I know that sounds a little contrived, but now take the same policy framework and apply it to this apparent conservative agenda.
If, for example (I do not know this to be the actual case), those in control of policy making genuinely believed that unwanted childbirths are best controlled by abstinence, then displaying information showing that condom use is effective would be counterproductive to the abstinence policy, and therefore might be considered political, rather than scientific information.
Going back to my silly analogy, a theoretical debate might go like this:
Pro-speeders: “You’ve taken down the study that shows that increasing the tire pressure makes the Ferrari F50 much safer at speeds above 180 mph. You’ve taken valuable science away from the public!”
Anti-speeder holding all the cards: “Speeding is wrong. We’re not going to encourage people to do something wrong.”
Pro-speeder: “But you’re killing people by not sharing this information!”
Anti-speeder: “Our recommendation to you is very simple: slow down.”
It’s policy and politics taking precedence over science, sure. But at the same time the policy really does determine whether or not the science is useful and productive. If the policy-makers believe the policy is good, then it’s the science, not the policy, that’s counterproductive.
Now, I have my own opinion about a political agenda which seeks to encourage a behavioral practice humans have probably never been able to effectively follow, while at the same time seeking to take away their rights to terminate pregancy, reduce public services to the poor while increasing their overall tax burden, and removing their protection from the sociopathic corporations which seek to reduce as many benefits as possible, if they’re lucky enough to get a damned job. But that’s just my opinion.
The fact of the matter is that we Americans handed the car keys to the conservatives (or they stole 'em off the coffee table–same difference) and it’s looking like we’re going to confirm that handoff in this election. So the conservatives are making the policy, and the policy dictates what science is pursued and disseminated.
Obviously, I don’t like this, but the public has spoken in favor of a party platform that doesn’t give a rats ass about what I think. So why can’t they do this sort of thing? They think they’re doing the right thing, and they think they’re working for my best interests.
Or at least that’s what they’re supposed to be doing, last time I checked. I’ve got my one chance to tell them what I think about their policy come November.
Here, have a nice, refreshing glass of arsenic and you’ll feel much better.
You make a good point Sofa. To the Bush administration, removing information regarding condom effectiveness may be part of the abstinence movement, just as not making clean needles available to addicts-even thought it could cut down on HIV infection-is part of the “war on drugs.”
However, in the case of the abortion/breast cancer information, while an argument could be made that telling people that there is no apparent increase in the risk of breast cancer after an abortion suggests that having one is okay(which the current administration doesn’t believe), the fact remains that abortion is legal, even if not universally accepted. In your speeding argument, speeding is against the law. Abortion is not. Allowing an atmosphere of ignorance and fear to prevent people from seeking out a legal procedure strikes me as not only bad politics, but immoral.
Sofa King, your analogy doesn’t work.
It is a very different thing to not provide information on how to do an illegal thing safely (like speeding), than to not provide information on how to do a legal thing safely (like contraception, abortion, etc.) that you wish people wouldn’t do.
The better analogy would be, instead of speeding, an administration came in that didn’t like people driving cars, regardless of what speed they were going. So they decided to suppress information like “when crossing an intersection, make sure to look both ways,” or “if your car begins to slip on ice, you should pump the brakes rather than simply slamming them down.”
'Cause, you see, we don’t want people driving, so there’s no point in giving them information about driving.
Sua
Okay, I’ll gladly accept your correction, Sua. But I still wonder about the moral component.
I honestly think that this administration is guided by a set of values which state that things like abortion and atheism (and who knows, contraception as well?) are wrong in an absolute sense. So whether or not such things are legal or not, can’t the administration use its executive authority to “strongly discourage” such things? The Bush administration certainly seems to be disposed to doing just that, which leads me to suspect it is legal, even if it isn’t very compromising or inclusive.
If the answer is yes, that leads to the interesting question of where do you draw the line between controversial policy and unlawful hindrance. What about going to the point of withholding information which could potentially keep someone from harm?
I suppose that you could argue the pros and cons of an administration imposing it’s particular moral values on the information they make available. But what about the business with the lead level advisory committee? Is there any way to argue that placing industry consultants on that committee is a matter of moral values?
—I’m not sure, what exactly is liberal about wanting accurate information to be made available?—
This is becoming a disturbing trend in many sectors, liberal and conservative. And no, no cites: it’s more of a general feeling from observing the last two decades of political and media debate.
It’s sort of the return of post-modernism with a vengance. I was surprised to see it raise its head in the latest wave of creationism (who thought a lefty ideology would catch on with fundie neo-cons?), but it has since spread to the general views of many political commentators and think-tank toadies.
In the new view, there are no facts, no science: only political views. “No-Spin” does not mean trying to be factual, it means trying to substitute political views deemed “good” for those deemed “bad.” There is no such thing as “being fair and evenhanded” because public perception will only translate this into “being weak, giving into the other side.”
It’s frickin’ scary stuff. Orwell would have proud: except now some of Orwell’s biggest fans are exhibit A in the very trend!
—administration is guided by a set of values which state that things like… atheism… are wrong in an absolute sense.—
Bush is the only president in recent memory to praise people “of no faith at all” and to say that we’re good people too. Only Nixon could go to China-syndrome, maybe. But even if you don’t think that proffesion is sincere, he did make it, and I haven’t seen any concerted effort to lobby against atheists so far…
I’m not so sure about that, Apos. The President’s father, George H. W., is still well remembered for saying, “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” But that of course is Poppy and not the current President.
As far as the current President’s “praise,” he apparently did say, “an American president serves people of every faith and serves some of no faith at all.”
That’s rather faint praise, in my opinion.
Then, at the very same National Prayer Breakfast he went on to say, “We do not impose any religion; we welcome all religions. We do not prescribe any prayer; we welcome all prayer. This is the tradition of the nation, and it will be the standard of my administration.”
Notice who he left out?
However, I realize that’s hardly conclusive evidence proving that this administration believes atheism is wrong, so my opinion remains just that–an opinion and nothing more.
Sofa King, where were you in this thread?