Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
CONTACT: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) |
President-Elect Obama Must Appoint Officials Who Will Restore Scientific Integrity to Government, Says National Science Group
Statement by Francesca Grifo, Union of Concerned Scientists
WASHINGTON - November 7 - President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to insulate science from politics to ensure the federal government protects public health and safety. To make good on that promise, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today listed the criteria his administration should use when selecting appointments for science-oriented federal agencies.
Below is a statement by Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program:
"The new head of any science agency must be committed to fundamental change in the agency's conduct and communication of science. President-elect Obama should choose agency leaders who will make five commitments to reform.
"First, a nominee should be willing to send a clear signal that he or she will protect scientists who blow the whistle when science is manipulated, suppressed or distorted. Scientists must be free to share their findings and disclose any misuse of their work without fear of reprisal. UCS surveys of scientists at 12 agencies over the past three years found 1,413 respondents who feared retaliation for expressing concerns about their agency's work.
"Second, the nominee should commit to a culture of openness rather than a culture of secrecy-and have a track record to back it up. All government information should be presumed to be public knowledge. Agencies should withhold it only for national security or proprietary reasons.
"Third, the nominee must value science as a key ingredient in policy decisions. While many factors go into a policy decision, science always should be considered.
"Fourth, nominees should pledge to fully explain how the agency arrives at regulatory and other decisions, including all scientific information considered in making decisions. They also should commit to disclosing meetings with special interests. The current administration continues to make policies behind closed doors, eroding public trust in government.
"Finally, the nominee should express how he or she plans to support and value the expertise and advice of staff scientists and scientific advisory committees. We have documented significant hostility between agencies and their advisory committees over the last several years. These relationships should be complementary, not adversarial.
"As it evaluates potential nominees, Congress should make clear that it expects nominees to create conditions conducive to a thriving scientific enterprise at their agencies and stand up to the White House if pressured to compromise scientific integrity. After they are confirmed, new agency heads should report back to Congress the steps they have taken to ensure that science is considered when making policy decisions."
For UCS surveys of federal scientists, go to www.ucsusa.org/surveys.
For the UCS Scientific Integrity Program's recommendations for the next administration, go to: www.ucsusa.org/scientific_
5 Comments so far
Show AllI'm going to miss Michael Crichton - he - was a lighted candle that truly was blown about in the worlds horrid winds of ignorance. When a man of true courage dies, it makes the world a little bit darker. Nonetheless, true courage comes from the faith found in men souls. There was nothing to celebrate when ignorance took center stage in this presidential election, strangely many things are shadowed by gloomy spirits for everyone - even the winners are not clear on what they have just accomplished. Michael was a contradiction to political correctness and lighting his candle gave many a view of why courage and truth are so vital for human existence. When he spoke, I felt that I could take a breath of fresh air, but now that he's gone, I hold my breath more often now. I am ever so thankful that we were given Michael. Michael had shown us that those who seek truth are rare and precious compared to those common ignorant ones whose primary purpose is to feed their belly. I hope someone else steps up to the plate and takes a few swings at the ignorance that modern science portends. Mr. Al Gore is such a wind bag! But what do we make of a Richard Dawkins? How are politicians who are marxist thugs in the first place going to improve science, for even some scientist are thugs - hello Richard.
This is a great statement from the UCS. I hope Obama is listening. I was also appalled how Cuban scientists and others on the administrations dislike list were forbidden from taking part in conferences and committee meetings over the course of the last 7 years. This conduct by the administration reminded me of what Russia used to do to its academics. Lets hope things change for the better. Lets also hope the new administration rebuilds the DoJ Civil Rights Division so they may move forward and prosecute scientific misconduct, fraud and discrimination which has no place in the academic setting, and which they had intended to prosecute before the current administration intervened.
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html
snydly
Well, it's the day after yesterday...scientists always have parties to go to...i don't get invited to parties any more...if only i had to nurse a hangover.-.-.-.
or a nurse to hang over.
cheers
Uh Oh. I guess that puts the quabbash on wild-eyed, arm-waving generalists who say things like:
"Well, so much for cool-headed chart analysis and amateur deductions and dot-connecting. Now I feel I must strip naked and run around the streets yelling this in the face of anyone who will listen...you guys with degrees can keep your You know, sometimes it's instructive to make a few observations and see where they take us. The following may seem too simple, or over the top, but consider:
The IPCC ice core data charts, and the same as seen in Gore's Book printed, so it can be studied, show us that there have been about 6 ice age cycles in the last 650ky. We are on the up-swing of a temp/CO2 spike now, with GHGs now well out of historical norms. This begs the questions-What weather phenomenon has defeated and reversed the previous spikes, yet not immediately lowered the mean planetary temp? -which is the trigger? temp or CO2? Obviously, temp. -It is also obvious that the reversals occurred before the ice caps melted appreciably, otherwise there would be no data to harvest...Is, then, the reversal of our spike immanent, or even, overdue? -When does the ice of an ice age build up? All at once or gradually, as the temp/CO2 decreases? How is the atmosphere supplied with the moisture and energy necessary to transfer so much water to the poles as snow and ice? -What role does methane play as it is released from tundra and the oceans? -Was there massive methane release during the previous cycles? Or did the reversals act to put the methane back to sleep, so to speak, before it could compound the greenhouse effect? There were humans present during the previous cycles, -How and where did they survive the reversals?
-What can the paleo-geologic record found in the magnetic striping of the mid-Atlantic ridge tell us about tectonic plate movement and possible, or sudden, volcanic warming of the oceans? -Is it possible that the mass of melt water transferred to the equatorial bulge would be sufficient to change the angular momentum of the earth enough to tweak the plates into movement? -Does USGS data show increased activity along plate boundaries that might be a "forcing of the forcings" related to shifting watermass or rising landmass?
The answers to these questions are not hard to compute. The answers dictate the type and intensity of response that is called for. The answers have probably been known for some time, by some people who have the connections and means to respond. The answers demand a change to the status quo, a change from "growth and consumption" to sustainability and survival. Look at the tops of the spikes and decide if we have any more time to dick around with any energy sources that add heat or GHGs to the ecosphere. Coal and oil are out. Nukes and geo-thermal are out. NG, too, even though it's cleaner. The grid has to change. Wealth has to be used in different ways. It's a different game, and we're all in the same boat.
We can have just as much fun surviving with wind and sun, as with burning and consuming---let's do it!
New:
Probably, one of the main characteristics of a spike is that everything is relatively normal, until it isn't. We are getting lots of clues now.
The emerging scenario seems to me to be: rising temp melts land-borne ice along with seaice. Fresh water disrupts the thermo-haliene circulation of the gulf stream and if we're lucky, that's as far as it goes--an ice age cycle of normal proportions is initiated and civilization is disturbed, but maybe not destroyed.
If ice melts at such a rate as to enhance the above, another scenario might unfold: Land-borne ice melt flows to the equatorial bulge (the planet is not a perfect sphere-it bulges at the equator because of centrifugal force) thus changing the mass distribution and angular momentum of the earth and putting enough pressure on the tectonic plates to start a geotectonic event that would activate the ring of fire and the mid-atlantic ridge. The resulting undersea volcanism, (not to mention the earthquakes, and worst case the popping of the Yellowstone magma dome,) would flash heat the oceans. That seems to me to be the hidden key to how and when an ice age starts, and how it gets the moisture and enough energy to move that much water back to the polar latitudes, forming the glaciers, part of which slide on down around Cincinnati, melt and recede over the next 110,000 years.
Apparently the methane has been sequestered for a very long time--dinosaur time. It would be very bad for us to loose enough heat into the mix to stir up the methane. The previous most recent six ice age cycles evidently have occurred soon enough in the cycle to keep the methane down under frozen tundra and cooled ocean water.clothes on, right?
ta-ta. (???Doesn't anyone from the Noble committee ever visit this site???)
Thanks for your response. An additional factor related to tectonics gleaned from USGS info is that land masses such as G-land, releived of the weight of the ice, tend to rise, actually float higher on the magma. And National Geog had an article, I believe, on the mechanics of the melting that is shaping up on G-land---flows of melt water form surface streams which drop through the thousands of feet of ice to the land surface, creating a layer of slush under incredible pressure. The next dot in that progression is: earth tremor, separation and departure of a largish section of ice cap which, worse case, might produce a tsunami out into the Atlantic. Or worst case, a chain reaction of tsunamis as some of the crumbling islands in the east Atlantic loose a mountain or two (PBS).
A serious multi-disciplinary approach, including even rogue generalists, seems called for."
Well, I went off half cocked (again)...out of respect for your time and sensibilities, and, since there seems to be only us chickens on this post tonight, I humbly offer the cleaned-up version:
Sometimes it's helpful to make a few observations and see where they take us. The following may seem too simple, or over the top, but consider:
The IPCC ice core data charts, and the same as seen in Gore's Book printed, so it can be studied, show us that there have been about 6 ice age cycles in the last 650ky. We are on the up-swing of a temp/CO2 spike now, with GHGs now well out of historical norms. This begs the questions---What weather phenomenon has defeated and reversed the previous spikes, yet not drastically lowered the mean planetary temp? ---What is the trigger? temp, CO2, other? Obviously, the reversals occurred before the ice caps melted appreciably, otherwise there would be no data to harvest...Is, then, the reversal of our spike immanent, or even, overdue (tipping point)?---When does the ice of an ice age build up? All at once or gradually, as the temp/CO2 decreases? ---How is the atmosphere supplied with the moisture and energy necessary to transfer so much water to the poles as snow and ice? ---What role does methane play as it is released from tundra and the oceans? ---Was there massive methane release during the previous cycles? Or did the reversals act to put the methane back to sleep, so to speak, before it could compound the greenhouse effect? ---There were humans present during the previous cycles, how and where did they survive the reversals? ---What can the paleo-geologic record found in the magnetic striping of the mid-Atlantic ridge tell us about tectonic plate movement and possible, or sudden, volcanic warming of the oceans? ---Is it possible that the mass of melt water transferred to the equatorial bulge would be sufficient to change the angular momentum of the earth enough to tweak the plates into movement? ---Does USGS data show increased activity along plate boundaries that might be a "forcing of the forcings" related to shifting water mass or rising landmass?
The answers to these questions are not hard to compute. The answers dictate the type and intensity of response that is called for. The answers have probably been known for some time, by some people who have the connections and means to respond. The answers demand a change to the status quo, a change from "growth and consumption" to sustainability and survival. Look at the tops of the spikes and decide if we have any more time to dally around with any energy sources that add heat or GHGs to the ecosphere. Coal and oil are out. Nukes and geo-thermal are out. NG, too, even though it's cleaner. The grid has to change. Wealth has to be used in different ways. It's a different game, and we're all in the same boat.
We can have just as much fun surviving with wind and sun, as with burning and consuming---let's do it!
Additionally:
Subjectively, one of the main characteristics of a spike is that everything is relatively normal, until it isn't. We are getting lots of clues now.
The emerging scenario seems to be: rising temp melts land-borne ice along with sea ice. Fresh water disrupts the thermo-haliene circulation of the gulf stream and if we're lucky, that's as far as it goes--an ice age cycle of normal proportions is initiated and technoloically enabled civilization is disturbed, but maybe not destroyed.
If ice melts at such a rate as to enhance the above, another scenario might unfold: Land-borne ice melt flows to the equatorial bulge (the planet is not a perfect sphere-it bulges at the equator because of centrifugal force) thus changing the mass distribution and angular momentum of the earth and putting enough pressure on the tectonic plates to start a geotectonic event that could activate the ring of fire and the mid-atlantic ridge. The resulting undersea volcanism, (not to mention the earthquakes, and worst case, the popping of the Yellowstone magma dome,) would flash heat the oceans. That may be the hidden key to how and when an ice age starts, and how it gets the moisture and enough energy to move that much water back to the polar latitudes, forming the glaciers, part of which slide on down around Cincinnati, melt and recede over the next 110,000 years.
Apparently planetary methane has been sequestered for a very long time--dinosaur time. It would be very bad for us to loose enough heat into the mix to stir up the methane. The previous ice age cycle/reversals evidently have occurred soon enough to keep the methane down under frozen tundra and cooled ocean water. An additional factor related to tectonics gleaned from USGS info is that land masses such as Greenland, relieved of the weight of the ice, tend to rise, actually float higher on the magma. National Geog had an article on the mechanics of the melting that is shaping up on Greenland---flows of melt water form surface streams which drop through the thousands of feet of ice to the land surface, creating a layer of slush under incredible pressure. The next dot in that progression is: earth tremor, separation and departure of a largish section of that ice cap which, worse case, might produce a tsunami out into the Atlantic. Or worst case, a chain reaction of tsunamis as some of the crumbling islands in the east Atlantic loose a mountain or two (PBS).
A serious multi-disciplinary approach, including even rogue generalists seems called for.
Amazing deductions, pseudo-science in prose, or story board for "The Day After The Day After Tomorrow"?
Your thoughts...