Very worrying I feel when a government ignores science!
No Science Zone
- Thread starter Sea Save Foundation
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I read both these articles.
Quote from the first one:
"Scientists argue that they are entirely agnostic when reporting on the safety of GMO foods or the effects of coal-fired power plants. If there’s a fight about these things, it doesn’t include any dog of theirs. The researchers are simply calculating the odds. They never promised that their efforts would be agreeable, entertaining, interesting, useful, or beautiful. The citizenry doesn’t need to like what science tells it."
Quote from the second one:
"For example, the President’s Muslim ban including those working for the federal government hurts science and scientists. And the President’s rescinding transgender protections is damaging to the inclusivity of the scientific community."
The problem is not science. The problem is the the politicization of science. When scientists and politicians get together and political policy is formed based on scientific research that has a direct economic effect on indivividual citizens in terms of increased taxes or reduced freedoms,especially when there has been some stumbling, then someone is going to get pushback; scientists, politicians, or both.
When organization after organization lines up to bash President Trump for every move he makes towards keeping promises he made to the electorate, a grouping pattern cannot help but be perceived that looks a lot like bullying from a mob directed by self-styled elites. The quantity, force, and veracity of the protests and attacks also creates the impression that the venom is more personal than political; they don't like him, never did, didn't vote for him, and resent his being elected in the first place.
This is how it comes off; as political opportunism.
From the first article:
"The frustrating reluctance to confront the existential problem of climate change could come back to bite us in a big way."
and:
"climate change is one problem that may become dramatically manifest very soon"
It's the coulds, mays, and mights that get ignored and the arrogance and impetuousness that exists despite them that also gets peoples' backs up.
Personally, I am a big fan of science; my father was a scientist, and I am an engineer.
But the regal triumvirate of science, politics, and media is creating an acrimonious environment in an increasingly divided and vulnerable society. Your posts here, on social media, as someone in the scientific community, enaging in a targeted political attack, is case in point.
Last edited:
drrich2
Contributor
Georgianne, I read through the 1st article you linked, focused on societal push-back and distrust of the scientific community. Thoughtful and a good read. I think he downplays the fact scientists sometimes have agendas, and their findings can be 'spun' and 'weaponized' for political agendas, but on the whole I liked that article.
For example, while the Democrats seems very concerned about climate change, they don't seem nearly so concerned about the impact of massive yearly deficit spending escalating a mind-boggling national U.S. debt that it would seem cannot continue into perpetuity, that should lead to reason-based confrontation of the necessity to radically cut back government spending rather than create new entitlement programs.
Nope, nope, move along, nothing to see here...
Something the author touches on does help explain some things; science is used to drive public policy (e.g.: vaccinations), and thus to 'mess with' people via regulations/legislations. That's going to trigger push-back and politics. Of course, such factors can also impact how the science is done. For example, there's been criticism of the fact that much of the research into the effects of medications is done by companies owning patents on, and profiting from, those medications. Doesn't mean a given study is wrong, but it's cause for skepticism.
Your 2nd article link is concerning, though it indicates the Trump administration is not unique in 'messing with' the scientific inquiry. While it has some praise for the Obama administration, even there it noted problems such as:
"The administration chose politics over science when it overrode FDAAdministrator Margaret Hamburg’s science-backed decision to approve Plan B emergency contraceptive as over-the-counter for all ages; never before had the White House overruled a drug approval decision."
I do think the author of that 2nd page has some politics of his own.
"For example, the President’s Muslim ban hurts science and scientists, including those working for the federal government. And the President’s rescinding transgender protections is damaging to the inclusivity of the scientific community."
Given that I work with some Muslims and have had Muslim friends, I was surprised by the so-called 'Muslim ban' when it came out. When I checked into the matter, I learned the counties banned were countries considered of concern by the Obama administration, too, did not include the large majority of Muslim-predominant nations, and temporarily halting most immigration from a foreign nation was not something Trump invented; it's been done before by both Democrats and Republicans.
None of which proves it needful or a good idea, but does fly in the face of how it was reported, and how this guy references it. As for trying to drag LGBT issues into it, now that is trying to use science to advance a political agenda on a dubious rationale.
The 1st article you linked was the superior of the two.
As to how all this relates to the HONEST Act, I can understand that there comes a time when a President is perceived as having said/done enough 'bad' (however an interest group defines that) such that anything else he proposes is presumed bad until proven otherwise. If I heard Obama was doing something good, I'd look for the ulterior motive. So I 'get' how the Trump administration looks to some of you.
That said, I think the HONEST Act should be considered on its own merits, not just looked at as a tool in some greater war. I even believe Obama did some good.
Richard.
For example, while the Democrats seems very concerned about climate change, they don't seem nearly so concerned about the impact of massive yearly deficit spending escalating a mind-boggling national U.S. debt that it would seem cannot continue into perpetuity, that should lead to reason-based confrontation of the necessity to radically cut back government spending rather than create new entitlement programs.
Nope, nope, move along, nothing to see here...
Something the author touches on does help explain some things; science is used to drive public policy (e.g.: vaccinations), and thus to 'mess with' people via regulations/legislations. That's going to trigger push-back and politics. Of course, such factors can also impact how the science is done. For example, there's been criticism of the fact that much of the research into the effects of medications is done by companies owning patents on, and profiting from, those medications. Doesn't mean a given study is wrong, but it's cause for skepticism.
Your 2nd article link is concerning, though it indicates the Trump administration is not unique in 'messing with' the scientific inquiry. While it has some praise for the Obama administration, even there it noted problems such as:
"The administration chose politics over science when it overrode FDAAdministrator Margaret Hamburg’s science-backed decision to approve Plan B emergency contraceptive as over-the-counter for all ages; never before had the White House overruled a drug approval decision."
I do think the author of that 2nd page has some politics of his own.
"For example, the President’s Muslim ban hurts science and scientists, including those working for the federal government. And the President’s rescinding transgender protections is damaging to the inclusivity of the scientific community."
Given that I work with some Muslims and have had Muslim friends, I was surprised by the so-called 'Muslim ban' when it came out. When I checked into the matter, I learned the counties banned were countries considered of concern by the Obama administration, too, did not include the large majority of Muslim-predominant nations, and temporarily halting most immigration from a foreign nation was not something Trump invented; it's been done before by both Democrats and Republicans.
None of which proves it needful or a good idea, but does fly in the face of how it was reported, and how this guy references it. As for trying to drag LGBT issues into it, now that is trying to use science to advance a political agenda on a dubious rationale.
The 1st article you linked was the superior of the two.
As to how all this relates to the HONEST Act, I can understand that there comes a time when a President is perceived as having said/done enough 'bad' (however an interest group defines that) such that anything else he proposes is presumed bad until proven otherwise. If I heard Obama was doing something good, I'd look for the ulterior motive. So I 'get' how the Trump administration looks to some of you.
That said, I think the HONEST Act should be considered on its own merits, not just looked at as a tool in some greater war. I even believe Obama did some good.
Richard.
Bubblesong
Contributor
it is not just about whether they believe in the science, but whether they believe in the Return on Investment of the regulations. Since the costs go to the businesses and landowners, and does not cost the government regulators, there has been a trend to demand huge investment in assuring teeny tiny amounts of protection.
Of course you can provide an example?
By law, every new regulation is subject to a cost/benefit analysis and cannot be adopted unless the benefits exceed the cost(s)
Still drinking that kool-aid Richard?
A second bill that was introduced with the the dis-HONEST act by the honorable Lamar Smith was the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Reform Act. It states that boards that review EPA studies cannot include any member that receives government funding, BUT allows "industry" representatives to be present.
And so back to the dis-HONEST act. . . I'm hoping given your profession that you on occasion read technical peer-reviewed journals. Can you give me a single example of a peer-reviewed medical journal where the underlying data (not the analysis) was exposed? <SARCASM>OMG the Medical profession is sadly out of sync with good science</SARCASM>
drrich2
Contributor
Pot meet kettle?
The research that drives medications used by the medical profession is often challenged. New studies overturn old positions, researches disclose potential conflicts-of-interest, medications under patent (making money for somebody) get a large amount of investment but out-of-patent cheap med.s making little money (e.g.: lithium in Bipolar disorder) get little, and over time, these patterns of research investment shape practice patterns. A number of people in articles, such as in those peer reviewed journals you mention, have lamented the migration away from lithium in U.S. medicine, with a strong suspicion much of this relates to the issues I described. Lithium is no panacea for everyone and has it's drawbacks, but so do other meds.
So, a governmental agency's findings are to be reviewed by non-governmental people, and stake holders can be present? I see cause for concern, but not to outright condemn it just on that.
Richard.
P.S.: Methology is important in medical studies. They don't just say 'Scientists concluded Ibuprofen works better then Tylenol for headache' (or vice versa). Oh, no. They get into study size, statistical analyses, etc...
You missed the point (again)
Show me a peer reviewed article in a Medical journal that includes the underlying data (equivalent to what the dis-HONEST act would require).
The simple fact is that good science requires peer review, but that review does not require access to the raw data. So is your profession sadly lacking, or is there another motive for the dis-HONEST act?
As for your
EPA scientists are funded by the government. The fact that experts in the field cannot participate in the peer review, but industry representatives (with a vested interest in blocking any further regulation) can, doesn't bother you? How long the the tobacco industry 'experts' claim there was no link between smoking and lung cancer?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or trying to establish a point. . .
Let's see. . . industry representatives have a strong financial interest in blocking more regulation regardless of the cost. No better example than the tobacco industry 'experts' who claimed for decades, that there was no causal link between smoking and lung cancer. The point of peer review is to bring the best and brightest minds to bear when reviewing research. No reasonable person would block industry representatives from participating (and they participate today), similarly, no reasonable person would block experts in the field (independent of their source of funding) from participating.
So where does leave Lamar Smith ?
- Messages
- 17,334
- Reaction score
- 13,745
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
Of course scientists have agendas, and not just "sometimes". Because people have agendas, and scientists are people, too. Yes I know. Shocking, right?
However, scientists worth their pay try their very best to not let their agendas and political views color their science. It's rather futile, since, as I've mentioned, scientists are just people, too. But a good scientist at least does their best to minimize the impact of their personal beliefs on their science. Because science.
Politicians and administrators, OTOH...
Similar threads
- Question
