Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You think I didn't catch the reference? Egad.
But are you saying that Bush is the first president to centralize policy (or non-policy--Hi, Ty!) in the way that he has? I don't really get it. Bush has a policy re global warming and the environment. It may be a sucky policy, but he has it. Why should government entities be coming out with reports that undermine those policy positions and goals?
The changes he made do not have appeared to have inserted psuedo-science in place of science. Rather they seemed geared primarily to tone, such as the degree of support. And they were *draft* reports. I suppose the white house could have no role, but if it has a role, why is this sort of editing not appropriate?
|
I guess it depends on whether it's being spun (I mean, offered) as a neutral presentation of data by serious scientists, or whether it's at least somewhat clear that what the scientists have written has been edited by non-science people. Also, who is supposedly the author of the reports? If it is the actual scientists, do they have veto power over the changes that are made by the policy people?
The shock over ties between drug companies and people running studies on the drugs they market -- and even more shock over the fact that unfavorable studies are not published -- suggests that generally people think scientists tell the truth as they see it.
Great. Now I'm starting to think the "people are basically good" thing is a load of crap.
Threaded Mode