Stacking the Deck Against Science

[GAspnes]

busy, busy little bees. Have you noticed the anti-Edwards campaign, claiming that he used 'junk science' to win birth-defect liability cases? I swear these guys would tear down the Statue of Liberty if they could do it at night.

Under the guise of promoting sound science, the Bush administration is advancing a policy that could make it more difficult for federal agencies to protect health and the environment, U.S. scientists say.

A White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, bulletin (PDF) drafted in August 2003 would allow the government to hand-pick scientists to second-guess scientific research, opponents say. The text of the bulletin says its purpose would be to ensure that all research affecting federal regulations, such as environmental or health advisories, would be thoroughly peer reviewed by unbiased researchers.

But scientists feel the government is commandeering a term that is near and dear to their hearts.

Peer review is the backbone of all serious science. It's a process by which top experts in a given field examine research for flaws, and often send it back to researchers for more work before it's disseminated to the public. But scientists say the White House version of peer review would allow the government to stack review committees in favor of the government and industry.

(disgustingly more)

http://wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62119,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

[StClone]

1. Science is Evil

Except when it's in the form of an SUV or other modern gizmo that the 'Christians' approve.

[daveskilt]

2. Discover magazine

had listed as #5 (?) in there top 100 science stories of 2003 the bush whitehouse obstruction of, disregard for, and cutting funding for science in general. THey also mentioned the damage to attitudes in the country done by the lack of respect for scientific method or rational thought that the bush admin has. This is a completely nonpolitical publication.

[dwckabal]

3. Significant statement

"It is really amazing that OMB has not pointed out a single instance of bad rule-making or decision-making based on (scientific) information," DePalma said.

That sentence speaks volumes.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. "Junk Science"

is stuff I don't believe in or like very much. Or costs me money.

"Sound Science" supports my ignorant preconceived notions.

Let's get it right, people.

[Viking12]

5. This policy is...

...the bastard step-brother of the Federal Data Quality Act which was the basis for the Competetive Enterprise Institute's "lawsuit" against the National Climate Change Assesment. Many scientists and enviros warned before the FDQA was implemented that it would be used politically. They were right. When the * Administration solicited the CEI to file a lawsuit challnging the National Assesment on FDQA grounds, the * & Co rolled over and allowed the suppression of the report. If this new policy were to be implemented, they wouldn't even need the CEI's of the world to file phony lawsuits to corrupt science.

[Viking12]

6. Here's a good site on OMB

http://www.ombwatch.org

and a link directly to a page on the policy of concern.

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2025/1/206/