> "Robert G. Seeberger" wrote:
http://www.space.com/news/science_politics_040814.html
>
> With more than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel
> Prize winners,
> having signed a statement opposing the Bush
> administration's use of
> scientific advice, this election year is seeing a
> new development in
> the uneasy relationship between science and
politics.
<snip>
> In the larger dispute, scientists charge that the
> Bush administration
> has violated its side of the bargain in two ways: By
> manipulating
> scientific information to suit political purposes
> and by applying a
> political litmus test to membership on scientific
> advisory committees.
>
> The conflict usually centers on scientific advice
> involving
> politically contentious subjects such as
> reproductive health, drug
> policy and the environment.
<snip>
If carefully done, well-designed research doesn't back
you up, you change your views, if you're honest.
Nearly all clinicians who treated peri- and
post-menopausal women thought that estrogen
supplementation was preponderantly beneficial. When
the studies finally came out -- we were wrong.
Guidelines and prescribing practices changed.
Abstinence-only programs.
Condoms and AIDS prevention.
Just two examples from the field of medicine
demonstrating this administration's ostrich responses.
Debbi
Galileo Knew Maru
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
