Science Starts To Fight Back
President Bush's war on science continues to disintegrate into unstable elements.
In a hearing before the Senate, Elias Zerhouni, the director of the National Institutes of Health, came out unequivocally for stem cell research. This was big news. When Zerhouni was appointed by Bush in 2002, some scientists were concerned about how much the Johns Hopkins researcher who advocated "unimpeded progress" in stem cell research had compromised himself to get the job.
In a New Yorker article in 2004, Stanford stem cell research pioneer Irv Weissman recounted a meeting with Zerhouni and the NIH's stem cell task force leader, James Battey. In the meeting, Weissman offered a scenario of using cell lines from diabetics to fight diabetes. Weissman was told it could not happen under Bush's current rules. Battey later told The New Yorker, "We're not policymakers. We inform policymakers. And the policy, of course, is not made solely based upon scientific input."
This week, Zerhouni went against his boss and stood up for scientific input. "American science would be better served and the nation would be better served if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines." He compared stem cell research in the 21st century to computers and the information revolution of the 20th century. "It's basically the software of life that we're talking about. . . . I think it is important for us not to fight with one hand tied behind our back."
The White House, the one that has been saying it's waiting for "sound science" for six years, responded like an ostrich. Spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush has always exercised "careful and thoughtful deliberation" on stem cells. Fratto said, "The president has to balance the moral and scientific considerations of this nation."
Even if Americans, by as high as a 68 percent to 27 percent difference in a 2006 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, favor expanding federal funding for stem cell research.
In another hearing before the House, Philip Cooney, the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was grilled as to why he made hundreds of edits to climate reports. The edits downplayed the human role in global warming. Cooney was a lobbyist for the oil industry (the "climate team leader" at the American Petroleum Institute) before being hired by Bush and became a lobbyist for Exxon Mobil after resigning, following the first reports of his editing in 2005.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Democrat Henry Waxman of California, released scores of those edits this week. In an Environmental Protection Agency draft report on the environment, Cooney deleted: "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment."
He also deleted a sentence that said, "The National Research Council concluded that 'Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.' " He substituted in its place, "Some activities emit greenhouse gases and other substances that directly or indirectly may affect the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation, thereby potentially affecting climate on regional and global scales."
Anyone fall asleep yet? That was Cooney's purpose.
Waxman asked Cooney, "Aren't the edits you were making exactly the types of changes the Petroleum Institute would have made to these reports?"
Cooney ultimately responded, "When I came to the White House, my loyalties -- my sole loyalties -- were to the president and his administration." Of course, that was really easy for him to say since Republican causes have received about 80 percent of the $104 million in political contributions from his pre-Bush and post-Bush industry, the oil lobby, going back to the 2000 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Unlike Zerhouni, Cooney is not a scientist. It was Cooney's political job to keep one hand tied behind America's back. He was just a Bush bully of science. With real researchers putting up both their dukes, the bullies seem much more like 100-pound weaklings.
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
var crYear = new Date(); document.write(crYear.getFullYear());
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
3 Comments so far
Show AllI have never considered scientists as members of the clergy. Science involves developing and testing theories; examining data and interpeting that data. Mistakes or misinterpretations have occurred throughout the history of science. Many mistakes have been made and these mistakes lead to improved theories.
Science's job is to seek the truth and when it is serving the public's interests, science should be free to tell the truth. This has not been happening in many areas where our tax dollars are spent in various fields of science to give both those who make policy and the public in general the best information possible at the time.
The clegy should stick to its specialties and science should stick to its specialties. That's why there's a seperation of Church and State.
Finally, most scientists have very high ethical standards, just as most in the clergy have high ethical standards. But this isn't about ethics. It's about having an informed public and government so they can base decisions on the best available evidence while always considering the ethics of an issue should that be pertinent.
SCIENTIFIC BETRAYAL
Never before have Americans experienced such dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data, as used by this administration to derail vital environmental reforms, conservation, family planning-- and the list goes on. The resulting long term environmental and social damage are beyond measure, and can only worsen if not curtailed.
Despite their clandestine cloak, or environmental friendly disguises, these sellouts have been evident since Bush first was handed the presidency. They have been exposed by defectors from the EPA, health & human services, etc; and have been documented and chronicled by numerous dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.
The gravity of these unprecedented betrayals eclipses the Monica Lewinski scandal which led to an impeachment, and pose greater dangers than Watergate which terminated a presidency.
Blame falls mainly on the populace and our legislators for tolerating this reckless and arrogant occupant of the White House.
We shouldnt be regarding scientists as the new clergy. They are human beings and therefore capable of making mistakes and poor judgement. Especially ethical judgement.
While they may be on to something with global warming--the comments expressed about genetic engineering are quite ominous. We should not be too quick to let scientists have a free reign when it comes to sporting with lifeforms. The same knowledge used in an attempt to create therapies can be used for new weapons.
100 years ago Heroin started as an over the counter cough syrup and the Pope endorsed cocaine.