 |
 |
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