What is Digg?274 Comments
- Holosiren, on 10/12/2007, -42/+350Another of Bush's valient efforts to bring the United States to its knees.
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -27/+285Note to government scientists:
Feel free to leak the truth. - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -32/+250and back into the stupid ages... can i have an inquisition with that? hold the plague....
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -38/+183This isn't news. Bushco has been attacking, censoring, suppressing, and editing government reports that conflict which his official policy since day one. And yes, this is not unlike the church officials from the dark ages suppressing science to support their own political aims.
Bushco has been denounced by just about every science organization on the planet for his war on science. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -36/+115bush is the decider, he decides what is science fact, or what history will record, and who we should invade, regardless of any facts/reality
- Pseudorious, on 10/12/2007, -27/+104Did anyone read the article?
The United States Geological Survey will require its employees to seek management approval before publishing. That's it. I have to seek management approval before acting publicly to ensure quality and accuracy. It's called a "job."
Do you further believe Bush takes a personal interest in the US Geological Survey? I thought you generally viewed him as an idiot. - wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -10/+64Since when is the peer-review system not good enough?
- halavais, on 10/12/2007, -11/+61The role of the FDA is a bit different, in that you can measure how a substance might have a negative effect on the human body. We have never taken the same approach with ideas in the US. We have always considered the smart move to be to allow ideas to be freely expressed and exchanged, particularly in the sciences.
In fact, if you get federal funding for health sciences research, you are strongly urged (required, though that can be fuzzy), to publicly report your research. In this case, the exception is government employed researchers, who have to submit their work to internal review before it ever sees the light of day.
That this is a quality issue is pure nonsense. If that were the case, Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, etc., would require internal review before releasing data. They don't, because they are interested in pursuing truth, not political power. - habu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+49http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301991.html
link to the origial Washington Post story. - habu, on 10/12/2007, -10/+53Since the science (in this case global warming) goes against current White House policy...
- jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+50How sad, that this comes just days after that open letter from the scientific community to stop politics from interrupting science.
- xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+52Exactly, and every Liberal has a Socialist streak in them.
That is the problem with the extremes, they are extreme. - tankexmortis, on 10/12/2007, -16/+55"Every Republican has a fascist streak in 'em."
Please don't say that. We're going to need to work with them. It doesn't help if you demonize them or make this an "us-vs-them" thing.
Now, saying that every neo-con has a fascist streak in 'em would be a different story, since they're essentially synonyms. - blast_flame, on 10/12/2007, -17/+47Science is no threat to normal christianity but it is to the churches twisted version of it.
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -9/+36This isn't effecting our health and it certainly isn't going to provide better quality of life for people who can't research geological and atmospheric data for those who can't on their own. The FDA certifies drugs, foods and other types of consumable and medical products for a very good reason, the rampant misuse of chemicals used to treat illness in the 1800's.
I think its important to not mis-label this as a service instead it should be seen as is, a blatant attempt to squash the research into global warming! - xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -50/+74The FDA does this for every drug on the market, and has done this for decades.
The FDA is the "Government"
Why is this news? - kiteflyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Yes but in the case of the USGS you paid for those studies.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28The US government is not a private company. The data was gathered using public funds and public resources. Furthermore, the whitehouse censorship of politically inconvenient data is not peer review.
Essentially what Bushco is doing is establishing a "ministry of truth". - lazlonger, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30You are ignorant. Most of the really important science has been and continues to be Govt. funded. What Microsoft does is their business, what the govt. does to science in our names is our business.
Oh...I just realized you're just hanging around to tout Linux and bash MS?...sorry....proceed. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31@Pseudorious: Did YOU read the article? If you had, you would have noted that the last sentence of this paragraph is what is concerning:
"The new requirements, unveiled in July but still being put into practice, call for staff scientists to submit all reports and prepared talks to managers to determine if they meet the agency’s scientific standards. They also require researchers to alert the agency press office of any work involving “potential high visibility products or policy-sensitive issues.” "
Also, your argument doesn't fly because these are _scientists_. They don't need "managerial approval," that's just not how science works. Scientists do their research, confirm their results, write a paper and publish it. Their bosses are not supposed to have any say in what they publish -- if their is a chance that the research is inaccurate then that is picked up by peer review. That's how it works, plain and simple. The "bosses" in scientific research aren't really the bosses at all, they are just administrative officials.
To say anything but is to go against the very nature of science.
Also, one of the quoted geologists has been working there for _30 years_. If this was normal behavior he would have no reason to be speaking out. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20"Calm down -- this isn't a precursor to someone strapping a rat cage to your face."
Every time the truth gets a punch in the face by this administration there's always some ***** standing up tell everyone to calm down. Lied about the justification to invade Iraq, just calm down. Rigged elections, no conspiracy, calm down. Lied about blowing the cover of a CIA anti-terrorism analyst, what's the big deal? Using government funds to push a religious agenda, calm down. Lied about secret prisons, illegally wiretapping Americans, calm down.
Well, you know what? I'm sick and ***** tired of being calm in the face of more lies and Republican scum trampling on the Constitution and Bill of Rights while Congress retreats from oversight as long as they get their earmark pork barrel pet projects. I got a right not to be calm and you can stuff that pompous self-righteous kowtowing ***** right up your ass. - xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -22/+40You mean Bush isn't reading every paper submitted and changing it's content to fit his "vast-right-wing-conspiracy"?
Oh, forget it then. - mico, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25Are you really this dense? You believe the USGS doesn't do global warming research?
- orbit1979, on 10/12/2007, -55/+71Not very surprising. Every Republican has a fascist streak in 'em. Besides, scientific research continues to be a threat to organized religion, which is now subsidized by the Federal Gov. and provides a power base for the GOP.
- Hecks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@blankman
Maybe my irony detector is out of batteries, but just re-read what you wrote.
"They just want to review findings that may have political impact (probably so they have a heads up to deal with potential problems when the public finds out)"
If your Government thinks so little of its people that they worry about people being told scientific truth, then you have a problem with your government. - johnlancia, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22@23r17i05o42n
Then why are American Scientists creating their own lobbying group called SEA, Scientists and Engineers of American? Why would they feel the need to do this for the first time ever?
Is is because Bush and his neo-conservative, knowledge hating lackeys are screwing their funding up and holding back research into critical area's like stem cells? Letting countries like China speed ahead of the U.S. in these fields, all so that they can court the religious right and stay in power. Who cares if the U.S. goes down the *****, as long as they can stay in power and ***** things up even more. I give you Iraq as an example.
Its guppies like you, who are making all of this possible. Its gullible neo-conservative fanboys, who after all that Bush and his douche bag cronies have done, not only to ***** up the U.S., but the rest of the world as well, that let this nonsense continue. Despite all of the glaring evidence that keeps confronting you and your kind.
So before you go around calling people gullible, en masse, you should step back and take a look in the mirror so that you don't make an even bigger idiot out of yourself. - yabos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16What the hell does it matter who funded it? If it's really science the outcome is supported by facts. You can't just ignore it because you're the government.
- JohnnyMi25, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17my heart goes out to my yankee neighbors to the south who DID NOT vote this "person" into office.
- tankexmortis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Whether Democrats do this too is irrelevant, this isn't about sides. This is about the government putting itself into a position where it can easily limit research and information in order to facilitate its political goals, something that this administration (as well as many, many previous administrations) has done before.
- PKBabaSoGud, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24@orbit
You realize one of the major Republican ideals is small government? Idiot.
Bush =/= traditional Republican.
Bush = Neo-conservative. - Propapanda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18I'm much more offended by the asterisk in the word *****.
- melvs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13To everyone saying this is only for the USGS, why not go and look at what other research and findings the Bush Admin has surpressed...
"On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents–signed the statement below, voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. UCS is seeking the signatures of thousands of additional U.S. scientists in support of this effort."
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientists-signon-statement.html - deep582, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Wow, Bush doesn't bother reviewing his own intelligence, but he doesnt find it wrong to review others......
- Wenz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24"What we're doing is ensuring the scientific excellence of USGS products"
No, what they're doing is ensuring that data is reviewed and edited so that the "facts" that get out to the public are the "facts" that the government wants us to see. I call BS on this one. - andyrobo60, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15when this gets put into practice a few scientific break throws that will happen are:-
global warming = scientifically proven not real
god = scientifically proven real
evolution = scientifically proven not real - washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I understand and sympathize with the executive branch's position that it can rightly direct policy how it sees fit. However, government employees--including USGS employees do not work for just the president--they work for the American people and must always keep the public good in mind (no matter how cliched that may sound).
Sadly, this is nothing new. 60 Minutes had a earlier this year or so ago on how the white house hired a former Exxon executive to screen all of the atmospheric/climate data coming out of NOAA. They showed copies of reports where he would scratch out entire paragraphs of reasoned conclusions from the data and soften the support the scientists had found for global warming.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml - jacobmiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_and_Engineers_for_America
1. Federal policy shall be made using the best available science and analysis both from within the government and from the rest of society.
2. The federal government shall never intentionally publish false or misleading scientific information nor post such material on federal websites.
3. Scientists conducting research or analysis with federal funding shall be free to discuss and publish the results of unclassified research after a reasonable period of review without fear of intimidation or adverse personnel action.
4. Federal employees reporting what they believe to be manipulation of federal research and analysis for political or ideological reasons should be free to bring this information to the attention of the public and shall be protected from intimidation, retribution or adverse personnel action by effective enforcement of Whistle Blower laws.
5. No scientists should fear reprisals or intimidation because of the results of their research.
6. Appointments to federal scientific advisory committees shall be based on the candidate’s scientific qualifications, not political affiliation or ideology.
7. The federal government shall not support any science education program that includes instruction in concepts that are derived from ideology and not science.
8. While scientists may elect to withhold methods or studies that might be misused there shall be no federal prohibition on publication of basic research results. Decisions made about blocking the release of information about specific applied research and technologies for reasons of national security shall be the result of a transparent process. Classification decisions shall be made by trained professionals using a clear set of published criteria and there shall be a clear process for challenging decisions and a process for remedying mistakes and abuses of the classification system. - slicedoranges, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11He also tried to approve CREATIONISM being taught in school.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16@xGORDOx
The FDA regulates food and drugs that are being marketed and sold to the public at large. They do this in order to make sure that the health and safety of the American public is not harmed by a cooperation who has not thoroughly policed itself, and is willing to put money ahead of public safety.
The U.S. Geological Survey group is being asked to basically police their scientists to make sure that none of their work conflicts with the official 'position' of the Bush Administration. This has the effect of stiffling legitimate scientific study and debate, and shows an unprecedented degree of willingness bring science into a partisan realm. Despite their claims that they want to ensure oversite of scientific study, there is no doubt that their goal to effect any research coming out of the USGS that might run counter to Bush's stance on issues like global warming and climate research.
It's reminiscent of 16th century Catholic Church politics regarding science, and shows a dangerous lack of regard for real empirical evidence.
[edit] what controlguy said. I got distracted, and should have refreshed before posting... - adstretch, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21I reject your reality..... and substitute my own
- FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Please remember that the head of the FDA is a Bush appointee without any medical background (sorry, didn't bookmark the cite. anybody?). FDA recently wanted to ban the vacine for cervical cancer just because the religious nuts thought it would encourage promiscuity.
Holding the FDA up as a bastion of scientific standards is not a wise idea nowadays. - Propapanda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I'm not all that Christian and I'm a huge fan of Bill Hicks... I'm still digging you down because what you quoted offers nothing at all to this conversation and because you're trying desperately to stir up a little atheist support to get dugg back up. You are contributing nothing of worth or importance to this discussion.
You are a douche-bag - uhbeta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This happened in July, and is what sparked the scientific community to get involved.
- ulcards2033, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Hate to break this to you all, but this is nothing new. Governments (including ours) have been doing this for years. One of the scientists who was doing studies on marijuana was basically told to go home when his results didn't fit the agenda. I'll try to find a link to this but it's been a while since I read it.
- kingjokin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING!! again.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Science is no threat to Christianity... keep on topic please."
Then why has the Church been fighting scientific advances for thousands of years? - lemenhir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Political Appointee Review != Peer Review
Management review != Peer review
Press Officer Review != Peer Review
Supervisory review != Peer review (usually)
Science peers are those who are published, those who know and understand the literature from the particular subject under review. Peer reviews are performed anonymously. Scientific results published by government funded scientists should be, and usually are, peer reviewed.
Unfortunately, most Federal science program managers are incapable of understanding, much less managing, the technical content of the science they manage. The purpose of promulgating these management reviews is to suppress finding that may be emarassing to the Administration. It really is that simple. It is Lysenkoism.
Last year one of NASA's most prominent global climatologists, James Hansen, was censored by a 24 year-old college dropout, George Deutsch. Deutsch was a former journalism major who had a political appointment in the NASA press office. He was not Hansen's peer, and this was not peer review.
Usually the suppression is more subtle. But the fact remains that the Bush Administration is trying to bully scientists into submission. Government scientists will not submit, and should not submit. Ever. Castrate the bullies! - kiteflyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yes but who will be doing the reviews?
If they are political appointies then there could be real problems. - Dyssolve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8If it's just peer review, who are the 'peers' in the government agency? Are they appointed by a politician or a scientist?
- swoopdog, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14here we go, science now has to awnser to the bureaucracy of the federal government.
what wont this moron do to stop progress? -
Show 51 - 100 of 275 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is