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
> see anything
> in the quoted passage or the full article to suggest that information
> about an
> actual breakthrough was kept from the public.  The issue on stem cells is
> whether to fund research that could result in a breakthrough in the
> future.
>
> In the other examples cited, such as global warming, there is no
> scientific
> evidence that is being kept from the public.  It's all there on the
> Web for
> anyone who is interested.  The issue is how one evaluates the
> information and
> draws policy conclusions from it.  In these cases, the Administration had
> reached a conclusion on the issues, and political appointees were
> expected not
> to undermine the Administration position in public.  Duh!
>
> I think 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, and I
> think they are generally wrong.  But I still don't see any
> breakthrough (or even
> essential information) being kept from the public.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peggy Willocks" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:03 PM
> Subject: The real truth on stem cells
>
>
>> I am politically savvy enough to know that certain things are kept
>> from the
>> public if they don't go along with administrative wishes.  But I
>> never would
>> have thought such tactics would be used if a scientific breakthrough
>> were to
>> be found.
>>
>> What do you think about this?  I'm sure this isn't the first time,
>> nor will
>> it be the last.
>> (Quoting from the Washington Post, July 11, 2007)
>> "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological,
>> theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply
>> buried," (Former surgeon general Richard Carmona) said. "The problem
>> with
>> this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is
>> nothing
>> worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for
>> reasons driven by changing political winds."
>>
>> For the full story
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001
>>
>> 422.html
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>

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