Date: 2006-10-01
Science and the PresidentIs Bush science's nemesis? Or are we being unreasonably rough on his record?
This month's cover story caused more debate among the editorial team at The Scientist than any other in my time here. We had consensus on the topic: Just how bad is George Bush for science? We also agreed on the timing: the October issue, just preceding the US midterm elections on the 7th of November. These elections are often considered to be a barometer of presidential leadership and a good predictor of the presidential elections two years later. The divisions opened up over our expectations for the story. Like many of you, I suspect, I didn't think that this question needed serious consideration. I was fully convinced that Bush has to be the worst-ever US president for the life sciences. And I felt that to make a watertight case all I needed was to quote two examples: Bush's stance on embryonic stem cell research, and global warming. Others felt that we had to scratch deep below the surface of prevailing ideas and conditions, to see whether they're justified. I urge you to read what news editor Alison McCook found when she consulted with dozens of sources, including former administration officials, scientists, and experts in science policy and science history. The answer to our question is not nearly as cut-and-dried as you might think. There are clear cases of abuse of science by the Bush administration. Some of these have been highlighted, condemned, and corrected, for instance in the case of Plan B contraceptives. Kudos to those who fought for truth and justice. But, deplorable as these abuses are, there is no evidence that they are part of a coordinated onslaught against science. In fact, in most respects the administration has been neutral in its treatment of science. And in some cases, especially where industry is involved, it has been somewhat positive, for example, the FDA's Critical Path Initiative. Given the evidence, I've altered my view somewhat. The president's views on stem cell research and global warming still really grate, but the shrill, almost hysterical reaction from some quarters appears to be misplaced. Bush's impact will become clear only in years to come, as he once said: "You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you're gone." A number of possible reasons for the fervor of the anti-Bush reaction are made in the feature. One that caught my attention came from Dan Sarewitz, an expert in the connections between scientific research and social benefit. Sarewitz wonders whether ideological differences outside science are influencing opinion. Scientists are mostly Democrats: Are they being unreasonably rough on the Republican president's science record? We are putting this to the test in an online survey (www.the-scientist.com/bushpoll) that questions our readers on how George Bush is handling science. The results are displayed live, and we'll publish an analysis on the Web site at the end of the month. One of the best ways of judging the president (or any politician) would be to get his direct response to queries. This is exactly what "Your Candidates - Your Health" aims to do, and I urge you to visit it in the run-up to the midterm elections (www.yourcandidatesyourhealth.org). Created by Research!America and the Lasker Foundation, the idea is to invite all candidates for the US House of Representatives and the US Senate to respond to a series of questions on medical and scientific research-related issues. Sometimes, challenges to conventional wisdom and the status quo can be parried easily, and the prevailing belief and situation is strengthened. Sometimes, such challenges force you to rethink your views. I hope you are at least provoked by the feature, and we welcome your feedback. Please engage in the discussions on our comment links following every article on our site, and suggest questions of your own that we might pose.
Advertisement
Rate this article
Amazed by Lee Roper [Comment posted 2006-10-13 19:37:40] If Bush hasn't been a bane for science, I don't know who has. Certainly Bush would agree with the fellow who said there is disagreement in science on macro-evolution. There is no disagreement in science about it whatsoever. There are a handful of religiously influenced scientists, usually not even in a pertinent biological field, who trumpet Intelligent Design, which has NO original research to support it, nor anything remotely noteworthy published about it in a peer-reviewed science publication.
____________________________ The Scientific Theory of Evolution from evolution Copyright ￂﾩ 1994-2001 Encyclopￃﾦdia Britannica, Inc. Impact and acceptance of evolutionary theory The theory of evolution makes statements about three different, though related, issues: (1) the fact of evolution; that is, that organisms are related by common descent; (2) evolutionary history--the details of when lineages split from one another and of the changes that occurred in each lineage; and (3) the mechanisms or processes by which evolutionary change occurs. The first issue is the most fundamental and the one established with utmost certainty. Darwin gathered much evidence in its support, but the evidence has accumulated continuously ever since, derived from all biological disciplines. The evolutionary origin of organisms is today a scientific conclusion established with the kind of certainty attributable to such scientific concepts as the roundness of the Earth, the motions of the planets, and the molecular composition of matter. This degree of certainty beyond reasonable doubt is what is implied when biologists say that evolution is a "fact"; the evolutionary origin of organisms is accepted by virtually every biologist. ____________________________ Nuff said. Lee Roper Hand over this research, Mr. Bush by Christopher Thomas Scott, Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics [Comment posted 2006-10-11 14:58:16] Dear Editors:
Alison McCook's "Sizing up Bush on Science" fails to persuade. Sure, George Bush has joined a line of presidents who, for political gain, act contrary to the best interests of science. But a full accounting of the Bush administration shows it distinguishes itself from the others in two significant ways: 1) its ruthless political efficiency and 2) its unwavering moral certitude. The two are tightly linked, and embryonic stem cell research bears the brunt of this holy alliance. Consider Bush's SWAT squad, rappelling into the United Nations in the summer of 2004 as the members were set to vote in support of therapeutic cloning. Guerrilla tactics, including rustling up nay votes from third-world Catholic nations with problems much bigger than stem cells scuppered the vote. Can Ms. McCook name another president who publicly supported a bill that would imprison scientists, doctors and patients? In the name of religion and the two-day old embryo, George Bush enthusiastically did. McCook seems to say we should understand Bush as a man who simply acts on his primal moral intuition. He has the right to act as a citizen, but last time I checked we live in a nation that embraces pluralism, where ethics finds its strength in the voice of the peopleￂﾗthe public. And the public says, "hand over this research." Given the sorry state of the so-called "presidential lines," no stem cell scientist worth his/her salt would concede McCook's point that Bush breaks new ground on the funding front. These are dangerous apologies. The Scientist relinquishes the high ground when it says, "let history judge." It is contrived logic to justify today's actions based on an unknown future, the same logic Bush uses to justify the war in Iraq. We must judge and act now; not to do so is a moral abdication. In the end, political action will settle this debate, just as political action began it. In July, the Senate came breathtakingly close to overturning the president's funding restrictions, nearly breaking the grip that one man has over millions of suffering Americans. Embryonic Stem Cell Research by Stuart Buck [Comment posted 2006-10-04 15:21:17] In what sense is Bush's position on embryonic stem cell research "anti-science"? In many areas of research, anyone who wants to do anything with human subjects needs to pass muster with "Institutional Review Boards." Are these boards also "anti-science"? Or are they merely a recognition that ethical guidelines need to be in place before experiments can be conducted on human beings? You appear, however, to be putting forward the view that "science" must be allowed to do anything that it wants to do, and anyone who raises ethical issues is "anti-science." President Bush & Global Warming by Joseph Allen Kozuh [Comment posted 2006-10-04 13:17:13] About 95% of the Scientists who say Human activity is causing Global Warming, are (1) not Meteorologists, and (2) are directly or indirectly using output from Computer Models that forecast Weather Conditions.
It is ironic that the Computer Models that are UN-able to predict next week's weather conditions with 50% confidence, are being used to forecast Weather Conditions in the years 2050 and 2100 and 2150 and 2200 !!! President Bush is wise to be skeptical concerning the charlatans of Global Warming !!! Sloppy thinking or incomplete information by Gordon Burghardt [Comment posted 2006-10-03 20:01:04] This story does nothing to deter me from the view that the Bush administration is the worst in my memory (Truman on) for science. Of course there is no concerted effort to get all science, no office of scientific disinformation. The whole process is to distort and manipulate. Placing industry people, or outspoken opponents of objective research, or others with agendas on boards or as agency directors is a way to ensure that views will be ideologically influenced. This is a main way the process works.
Do I need to run through what has happened on the stemcell and cloning commissions, forestry policy, attempts to stifle evolution teaching, pollution levels, energy conservation, missle defense, WMDs, contraceptive research, population planning, drug policy, etc. etc. The problem with trying to be nuanced and balanced is that the middle ground may not be in the middle at all. What other administration demanded to routinely demand to know how scientists voted? Marburger is a sellout or just ignorant of biology. We will find many more Powell's and Tenet's spilling beans when more administrators step down. I am in Tennessee. Why not read what the head of Alcoa wrote after he resigned from the cabinet? Sure, there can be some complexity to individual cases, but the pattern is clear. There also is a reason few scientists are rightwing conservatives. We have been trained to use our minds and at least seek objectivity, tend to be internationalist, should be willing to change our mind when data demands. For some though, objectivity the act of the devil - scratch a creationist or ID proponent if you think I overstate. Claims for "sound science" are coupled with demeaning of researchers and personal destruction, not necessarily as policy but as encouraged by the administration implicitly by their federal and state republican adherents. This is something I am personally experiencing now. President Bush is Bad for Science by Neil Gussman [Comment posted 2006-10-03 20:00:42] Along with global warming and stem cells, President Bush either cynically (to keep his base on his side) or sincerely put himself in the role chief promoter of the ￂﾓteach the controversyￂﾔ strategy of the Discovery Institute. Either way, Mr. Bush at least tacitly endorsed opposition to science. Like Francis Collins and other sincere believers who accept science as the best way to know the material world, I am doubly pained by the Presidentￂﾒs position. Obviously, I think the Discovery Institute along with Young Earth Creationists are wrong, but more importantly, they put believers in the position of being unthankfulￂﾗmuch worse for us than being wrong. Because everyone in the West, believer or not, owes their life to medicines, treatments and technologies that grew out of research based on evolutionary biology and modern physics.
Mr. Bush leads the way for those who ￂﾓPraise the Lordￂﾔ for the treatments that keep them alive then rant to millions on TV about godless science. Bush has my vote for worst President on science. Neil Gussman Just because Bush disagrees does not make him anti-science by Patrick Young [Comment posted 2006-10-03 20:00:26] I think the editorial board of this periodical needs to get past the fact that someone can disagree with the majority of scientists and still be pro-science.
Saying that Bush is anti-science because of his stance on embryonic stem cell research is akin to the statement that Ronald Reagan was against to equal rights for women because he opposed the equal rights ammendment. There are many scientists that do not agree with the majority on global warming, embryonic stem cell research, macro-evolution, RU486, etc...... This does not make them or anyone else anti-science or anti-anything. |
Register for FREE Online Access
- »Current issue
- »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
- »Daily news and monthly contents emails
Subscribe to the Magazine
- »Monthly print issues
- »Unlimited online access
- »Special offers on books, apparel, and more