Hi All,

I have to agree with Art on this one. The bullying and intimidation of
scientists by the current  administration and it's more extreme congressional
allies has included both internal "pressure," as evidenced most recently by the
testimony of fomer Surgeon General Richard Carmona, as well as public
harassment such as the investigations into the professional and personal lives
of scientists who warned of the dangers of global warming. This "politicization
of science" is a new and ominous development. I think perhaps Arnie's
recognition that "it is a valid criticism that, in most of these cases, the
Administration position is driven by an 'ideological, theological or political
agenda', rather than by analysis of the science," underestimates how serious
that criticism is, both in the extent to which it represents fundamental shift
in the treatment of science by government, and what it may portend for the
future of the freedom of scientific thought itself.

In May 2006, just after the President's veto of the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act, my wife Ann and I were invited to give a talk as part of the
Stem Cell Panel which closed the annual Beckmann Young Scholars Symposium for
emerging leaders in the fields of biology and chemistry. This was our take on
the important issue of the new "War on Science," as it has been called, and is
excerpted from our presentation:

"Since the end of World Was II, the federal government has invested heavily in
the funding of basic scientific research at American universities and in the
private sector. The NIH alone accounts for the two-thirds of basic medical
research funding. When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, the public
respect for science and scientists was at its zenith. Many scientists were as
famous as baseball stars.  Albert Einstein, with his reassuring grin from under
an unruly shock of white hair, was the prevailing image of the "great
scientist."  Robert Oppenheimer, with pipe and slouch hat, and the other
scientists at Los Alamos , were regarded as having helped to end World War II.
Everyone was aware of Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine, as well as Linus
Pauling, the father of molecular biology.

"The space race was followed closely by the whole nation: the word " Houston "
entered the English language as a synonym for command post, while the name
"Astros" was given to Houston 's first baseball team. Science meant progress,
and scientists enjoyed a remarkable freedom of inquiry and were accorded great
respect.

"This national respect for science was reflected in the way in which scientific
opinion was treated by government and the general public. Scientific opinion
did not dictate the scientific policy of the federal government, but the
opinion of scientists was by and large received with dispassionate respect in
the formation of policy decisions. For example, in the early 1960’s President
Kennedy sought the advice of scientists in deciding whether to concentrate on
unmanned space flights or to use astronauts as a major feature of the space
program. The scientists told the administration that unmanned flights would be
more valuable in gathering useful scientific data. “Astronauts” were not
particularly necessary to the program. Kennedy decided, however, that a space
program using astronauts would capture the imagination of the public in a way
that unmanned space flights would not, increasing support and funding for space
exploration. He went with astronauts, former air force fighter pilots, and they
became national folk heroes who gave the American public a very personal
connection with the space program.

"What is important about this example is that although President Kennedy
rejected the advice of the scientific community in making a fundamental policy
decision about the space program, he did not try to inappropriately politicize
the science itself. He did not try to undermine, alter, or otherwise interfere
with the scientific process, or the conclusions of scientists, for political or
ideological reasons. He did not disrespect the integrity of science and
scientific opinion and turn it into a mere tool of his own political agenda.

"In recent years, however, a disturbing and dangerous new approach to
scientific opinion and research, including stem cell research, has developed.
And this new treatment of science and scientists will have a significant and
lasting negative impact on the freedom of scientists to conduct legitimate
research, will in fact slow the progress of science itself, unless it is
addressed vigorously and forcefully by all those are who committed to the
freedom of scientific inquiry, including scientists themselves.

"From our perspective as members of the patient advocacy community, we have
witnessed firsthand the development of this dangerous phenomenon - that is, the
abuse and misuse of scientific research and scientific conclusions for purely
political purposes without respect for the weight of scientific opinion. This
“politicization” of science has resulted in the distortion and
misrepresentation of commonly accepted scientific opinion, the suppression by
government of science which does not comport with particular political
ideologies, and a dangerous reliance on “fringe science” to justify political
decisions concerning scientific policy.

"This unprecedented politicization of science and scientific debate is
primarily reflected in the approach to science taken by the Bush administration
and the voter base critical to his election and re-election, the extreme right
wing of the Republican Party, particularly the religious right.  Each of you,
as members of the scientific community, should be aware of the threat that the
administration’s “War on Science,” as it has been called, poses to your freedom
to engage in legitimate areas of scientific inquiry, including stem cell
research.  As Nobel Laureate and prominent stem cell advocate Paul Berg has
said, 'if left unchallenged, the Bush administration’s deliberate
misrepresentation and frequent outright disregard of science advisory
processes, and the extent of its anti-science bias in government policy-making,
will have serious consequences for the nation’s economy, health, and security.'

"We can never hope to entirely separate science from politics, but science must
not be allowed to be consistently and knowingly distorted or misused as just
another tool to accomplish a purely political end. That is where the current
administration has repeatedly and dangerously crossed the line, attempting to
undermine the regard for science itself, interfering with the scientific
process, and attempting to slant, alter, and suppress the results of legitimate
scientific inquiry.

"Examples of the misuse, misrepresentation, and distortion of scientific
research and opinion, as well as the bullying of scientists, by the current
administration and its more extreme cheerleaders in congress, are abundant.
From environmental issues such as global warming, to the effectiveness of
condoms in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, to the
disappearance of huge amounts of commonly accepted but ideologically
inconvenient scientific data from government websites, to the battle over
embryonic stem cell research, the current administration has approached the
importance of science to policymaking with a disregard and disrespect not seen
since John Scopes was convicted of the crime of teaching evolution in the
public schools in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925.

"To understand the depth and seriousness of this new war on science, consider
the actions of Congressman Joe Barton of Texas , Chairman of the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce. Last year Barton, who has close ties to the
fossil-fuel lobby, initiated an investigation into the careers of three U.S.
climatologists whose work helped establish that man-made carbon emissions were
partly responsible for global warming. Barton demanded details of all of the
scientists’ funding sources, their research methods, and copies of everything
they had ever published. He claimed the information was necessary because
Congress was going to make policy decisions drawing on their work, and his
committee needed to check its validity.

"Eighteen of the country's most influential scientists from Princeton and
Harvard wrote to Barton expressing "deep concern" about Barton’s motives for
investigating the scientists. Rep. Henry Waxman, a senior Californian Democrat,
complained that the hearings were a "transparent effort to bully and harass
climate-change experts who have reached conclusions with which [Barton]
disagrees.”

"Numerous other examples of the misuse and distortion of science came to light
in 2004, when the Union of Concerned Scientists released evidence that the Bush
Administration had repeatedly suppressed and distorted scientific knowledge and
undermined scientific advisory panels. The cases cited detailed incidents of
suppression and distortion of scientific knowledge on issues ranging from
mountaintop removal strip mining to endangered species. There were numerous
accounts of political interference with independent scientific advisory panels,
most notably at the NIH.

"In response, 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and
127 members of the National Academy of Sciences signed a statement calling for
an end to these practices and the restoration of scientific integrity in
federal policymaking.  Janet Rowley, recipient of the National Medal of
Science, and at that time a member of the President’s Advisory Council on
Bioethics, explained why she signed the scientists’ statement. 'Our government
has a responsibility to consider accurate scientific evidence when it makes
decisions that affect human health. I have seen first hand through the
President’s Council that this administration distorts scientific knowledge on
stem cell research, which makes it increasingly difficult to have an honest
debate in a field that holds promise for treatment of many serious diseases
like Parkinson’s and juvenile diabetes.'

"Let’s look in more detail at the use and misuse of science in the fight over
stem cell research. Through an intense campaign over the last several years to
educate the public about the potential of embryonic stem cell research, patient
and scientific organizations have succeeded in turning almost 75% of the
citizenry into supporters of escr. We recognize that stem cell supporters have
sometimes exaggerated the power of stem cells to find quick fixes for complex
chronic illnesses, and such misrepresentations must be acknowledged and not
repeated.

"In comparison, however, the most vocal opponents of stem cell research,
including the Bush administration and the anti-abortion wing of the religious
right, have knowingly engaged in a strategy of distortion, misrepresentation,
and outright lies about stem cells and stem cell research that is nothing short
of shocking in its brazen disregard for the truth.

"Four major pieces of stem cell legislation were considered by the 109th
Congress. One of those bills, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, also
known as the Castle-Degette Bill, which was supported by most patient and
scientific advocacy organizations, would have allowed scientists to conduct
research on excess frozen embryos from In Vitro Fertility clinics – embryos
that would otherwise be discarded and destroyed. That bill was passed and sent
to the President, who promptly vetoed it. The veto was filmed, showing the
President surrounded by several so-called 'snowflake' children - that is,
embryos 'adopted' from IVF clinics and then implanted in a woman’s womb and
brought to term. The presence of the children was a knowing misrepresentation
of fact. It implied to viewers that 'embryo adoption' was a viable alternative
to the destruction of excess IVF embryos. Stem cell opponents know, however,
that only 128 'snowflake' embryos have been adopted from the 400,000 or more
embryos that remain frozen in IVF clinics. Furthermore, the destruction of up
to thirty frozen embryos was sometimes required before an 'embryo adoption'
pregnancy to term could be achieved. Even allowing for embryos that are still
being kept in clinics in the unlikely event that the couple that produced the
embryo wants to implant it to have more children, there are still well over
100,000 excess embryos slated for destruction. Snowflake adoptions obviously
have had a statistically insignificant impact on that number. Yet by
surrounding himself with 'snowflakes' the President was sending the opposite
message to Americans, and that message was a lie.

"Perhaps the most stunningly cynical aspect of the position of most of those
who oppose the use of excess IVF embryos for life-saving research is their
silence about, or, in the President’s case, public support for In Vitro
Fertilization. Standard IVF procedures deliberately create excess fertilized
embryos in order to allow the most healthy to be chosen for implantation. Both
the couples receiving IVF treatment and the doctors who perform the treatment
understand that the remaining embryos will be discarded. That of course is why
there ARE 400,000 excess embryos in IVF clinics. The President calls the
destruction of those embryos for medical research 'murder,' but he publicly
supports the procedure that creates those doomed embryos. He does so because
IVF is extremely popular with voters.

"The fact that four bills were under consideration by Congress is itself an
example of the distortion and manipulation of science to achieve a political
end.  In addition to the vetoed Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, Congress
considered the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act.
This legislation would have prohibited public funding of embryonic stem cell
research, but funded research using adult or umbilical cord stem cells.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research have insisted that research on adult
stem cells is as promising as research using embryonic cells, despite the fact
that the consensus of scientific opinion holds the opposite to be true. Adult
stem cells are claimed to have cured 'dozens' of diseases, a claim which is
patently false. Adult stem cells can and are being used to treat diseases,
particularly blood born diseases such as leukemia, but most scientists believe
that the inherent plasticity of embryonic stem cells, their ability to
differentiate into many different cell types, makes them more promising for
disease research. Even Catherine Verfailles of the University of Minnesota ,
whose work with adult stem cells has been hailed by escr opponents, has
distanced herself from extreme claims for the promise of adult stem cells. 'My
work is being misused,' she has said. 'They have put words in my mouth.'

"The current scientific champion of adult stem cells, paraded before
Congressional committees by stem opponents like Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep.
Dave Weldon, is David Prentice, a former professor at Indiana State University
and now a 'senior fellow' at the Family Research Council, a conservative
Christian group. He claims that adult stem cells make research using embryonic
stem cells unnecessary and that adult stem cells have been used to cure or
treat 65 different diseases. But his claims are disputed by both the National
Institutes of Health and the International Society for Stem Cell Research. This
is an example of politically motivated 'fringe science' being used to discredit
the conclusions of the vast majority of the scientific community.

"The alternative adult stem cells bill was designed to provide political cover
for politicians who oppose embryonic stem cell research but want to say they
support 'stem cell research.' It was a cynical political ploy, and though it
passed 100 to 0 in the Senate, it was seen as the smokescreen that it was and
voted down in the House.

"The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act was passed by both houses and signed into
law, but the Act is viewed as a joke by most politicians. Sponsored by Sam
Brownback and Rick Santorum, it prohibits the creation and sale of embryos for
research, so-called 'fetus farming.' But there is no evidence that such a trade
exists or ever will. The same argument was used to oppose organ transplantation
a quarter century ago, and no “organ farms” have been uncovered to date.

"Which brings us to the most pernicious legislation of all, the
Brownback/Weldon Human Cloning Prohibition Act, which would criminalize Somatic
Cell Nuclear Transfer, including therapeutic cloning, and would throw any
scientist or patient using or benefiting from SCNT research in jail for 10
years and fine them $1,000,000 dollars. Remarkably, this bill was passed in the
House by large majorities in 2002 and 2003. Only after intense education
efforts by patient advocacy and science organizations were these bills stopped
in the Senate. Continuing advocacy work has kept them from reaching the floor
of the House or the Senate since that time, but they remain alive in committee
and continue to threaten both scientists and patients.

"So what is the message that we bring today as patient advocates to you as
young scientists. The message is that science, and scientists, are under
serious attack in a way never before seen in this country. The message is that
the freedom of all scientists, not simply scientists working with stem cells,
to engage in legitimate scientific inquiry is in real danger. The message is
that scientists are being harassed and threatened with prison when their
research collides with the ideology of those in power in the White House and
their more extreme allies in Congress. Most importantly, our message is that it
is up to all of us, patients, scientists, and ordinary citizens to become
advocates for and defenders of the independence of scientific thought. We must
stand up to the bullies and extremists who threaten the freedom of those whose
work down through the centuries has shined a light into the darkness and
increased our knowledge about the world and the way it works.

"We fail to do so at our peril."

Sorry about the length, but I think this issue may, in the long run, be the
most damaging legacy of the Bush administration.

Respectfully,

Greg Wasson

--- ArtHale <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The previous submissions are well intended, but not consistent with the
> pattern that has been clearly revealed. Just talk to Hansen (of
> Goddard), which I have - about the way his material on global warming
> was censored by political "hacks" in the review by superiors. He finally
> managed to break out - but  I worked in the USG under Carter and Reagan
> and can assure you a dedicated  professional civil servant (with a
> family, kids to educate, and a mortgage) will often back off in the face
> of such a situation. I have many retired associates who can cite what
> amounts to an organized control of scientific info, be in in EPA, FDA,
> DARPA, by political operatives. They serve a higher master (in their
> opinion) than the public.
>
> To say that one has not seen any proof is rather naive - to have not
> seen it proves nothing. This reminds me of Amron Katz's (Rand Corp)
> famous statement "we have never found the Soviets being successful in
> cheating on a treaty".  If we had caught them, it would not have been
> deemed "successful".
>
> Arnie Kuzmack wrote:
>
> > Unaccustomed as I am to defending the Bush Administration, I do not

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn