Reason returns to Dover

[Johnny Coli]

All that "Bush is stupid" talk really never had much to support it beyond his inability to speak well off the cuff or even from a good script.  However, the one area I would argue that really does support the idea that he is not very bright is his apparent position on teaching creationism in schools.  It almost has to be a position born of ignorance. 

500427[/snapback]

 

 

I wouldn't say he was ignorant of basic science. I would say he has a contempt for science.

 

I'm not alone apparently, because there are over 8,000 signatures of other concerned scientists on a petition from February 2004.

 

Here's a NYTimes article from September of this year:

NYT Article (9/2005): Is the Bush Administration anti-science? (you'll need to log in)

(T)he Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report in February of last year charging that the administration's political agenda had permeated ''the traditionally objective, nonpartisan mechanisms through which the government uses scientific knowledge in forming and implementing public policy.'' A petition appended to the report and signed by more than 60 pre-eminent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates -- among them Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health -- accused the administration of ''systematically'' manipulating scientific findings.

...

In June 2004, 48 Nobelists released a letter endorsing John Kerry, and several months later, a political action group, Scientists and Engineers for Change, arranged a series of lectures by prominent scientists in key battleground states, in a show of force that recalled the vehement opposition of the scientific community to the presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964.

...

Bush's success in the election did little to tamp down scientific activism. The U.C.S. has continued to publicize instances in which politics seems to be intruding on science, and the original petition has garnered more than 7,000 additional signatures.

 

Here's the link to the Feb 2004 USC letter, and it's now 8,000 signatures:

Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking

 

Excerpt:

When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.

 

...with a link to a list of the more prominent signatories....Signatories

I doubt any of these esteemed gentlemen would ever be accused of belonging to the Tin-foil hat crowd.

 

 

Here's an amazon link to the reviews of Chris Mooney's book "The Republican War on Science"

Amazon review of The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney

Scroll down for the review from Scientific American:

But both [Nixon, Reagan] pale in comparison to the current Bush administration, which in four years has:

* Rejected the scientific consensus on global warming and suppressed an EPA report supporting that consensus.

* Stacked numerous advisory committees with industry representatives and members of the religious Right.

* Begun deploying a missile defense system without evidence that it can work.

* Banned funding for embryonic stem cell research except on a claimed 60 cell lines already in existence, most of which turned out not to exist.

* Forced the National Cancer Institute to say that abortion may cause breast cancer, a claim refuted by good studies.

* Ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to remove information about condom use and efficacy from its Web site.

 

Mooney explores these and many other examples, including George W. Bush's support for creationism. In almost every instance, Republican leaders have branded the scientific mainstream as purveyors of "junk science" and dubbed an extremist viewpoint--always at the end of the spectrum favoring big business or the religious Right--"sound science."

 

 

So, does Bush dislike scientists and science because they make him feel stupid, or is he (and his administration) undermining and contorting science to support his/their own agenda? I would say the latter, of course.

[finknottle]

So, does Bush dislike scientists and science because they make him feel stupid, or is he (and his administration) undermining and contorting science to support his/their own agenda?  I would say the latter, of course.

500480[/snapback]

 

Yes. And from his point of view, why not? Why should he (or anyone else in that position) actually care about advancing science and knowledge? Unless it's a personal interest, why should he care whether, say, we send a mission to an asteroid today or 200 years from today? Or whether US students are the best or last in science 20 years from now? How does that effect him or any other leader? (Assuming it doesn't get politicized.)