Oldtimer said:
flounder-- because so many DIFFERING folks are involved, is the reason I can't believe in any theory of coverup of vCJD...It would mean 1000"s of different ME's, Coroners, Drs., Labs, Lab technicians--from all over the nation-- few of which use the same labs....
Even if the federal government (which I don't trust) tried to hush things up- there is no way with the number of people that would have to be involved- and in most cases the Feds don't have the authority to do so anyway... In our state, no one had authority to override a coroners decision- except for the fact that the County Attorney and State Attorney General had the right to call for an inquest- whereby the Coroners jury could affirm or override the Coroner and determine manner and cause of death.......Federal government doesn't even have a ME or Coroner system- the reason the County Coroners in most areas handle the deaths occurring on the Indian Reservations (sovereign nations)...
This is also why--Because of the hundreds- probably 1000's involved in the USDA's BSE testing program that I don't believe a coverup could be perpetrated...Some individual cases could be missed- some could be screwed up from improper training and procedures- and maybe their testing wasn't the greatest because of their policy-- but I don't think even as crooked as this administration is that they could cover up cases.....
OT, sometimes i really think you believe all the BSe you put out :lol2:
but sadly, the facts speak for themselves ;
SUPPRESSING, ALTERING OR MANIPULATING EMPERICAL DATA UNDERMINING THEIR IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS: More than 4,000 scientists – including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences – have accused the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing science to suit its political goals. (Shogren – Los Angeles Times 07.09.04)
A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that this administration has:
a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific finding by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety and community well being. Incidents involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence
The report also found that:
there is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.
A report by the House Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff reaches the same conclusion, revealing examples such as the administration:
Changing education performance measures to make “abstinence-only” programs appear effect; deleting information on the efficacy and use of condoms from the Center for Disease Control web site; withholding findings on global warming and other negative impacts on wetlands and preventing any analyses on alterative environmental proposals;
using misleading data to suggest that a functioning missile defense system could be deployed quickly;
including information on the National Cancer Institute’s web site suggesting conflicting evidence on whether abortion leads to breast cancer when the scientific community has determined no such link exists; and
preventing research on agricultural practices having a “negative health [or] environmental consequences.
READ THE REPORT! http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf
Published on Friday, July 9, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times
Researchers Accuse Bush of Manipulating Science
by Elizabeth Shogren
WASHINGTON — More than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences, accused the Bush administration Thursday of distorting and suppressing science to suit its political goals.
"Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government's outstanding scientific personnel," the scientists said in a letter.
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.
Janet Rowley, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics
The administration has frequently been accused of misusing and ignoring science to further its policy aims. The list of signatures collected by the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that the issue has become worrisome throughout the scientific community.
Administration officials rejected the criticism Thursday, as they did when the same letter was released in February bearing the names of 62 prominent scientists.
John Marburger, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the letter and a report released simultaneously by the Union of Concerned Scientists "reach conclusions that are wrong and misleading."
"This administration values and supports science, both as a vital necessity for national security and economic strength and as an indispensable source of guidance for national policy," Marburger said.
The scientists cited examples of colleagues denied seats on advisory panels, allegedly because of their political beliefs.
Dr. Gerald T. Keusch, who left his post as associate director for international research and director of the John E. Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health, said the Department of Health and Human Services had rejected 19 of his 26 candidates for the center's board over three years. Among the 19 was a Nobel laureate who, Keusch said he was told, was turned down because his name had appeared in newspaper ads accusing the administration of manipulating science.
His nominations for the board — which advises on which research should receive federal grants — were accepted during the Clinton administration. But once President Bush took office, Keusch said, they "were rejected one after another."
"There are increasing bits of evidence at attempts at control over the business of science," said Keusch, now the assistant provost for global health at Boston University Medical Center.
He said he was motivated to speak out not by "political malice," but a desire to protect the "integrity of science" at the NIH.
Among the Keusch nominees rejected by the HHS was Jane Menken, a population expert at the University of Colorado at Boulder who had served on scientific advisory boards under President Reagan and the first President Bush. "I was being renominated and I was turned down," she said. "No official ever gave me any reason."
Contrary to the Bush administration, Menken supports the availability of legal abortions. She said that given her qualifications and those of two colleagues rejected with her, one a Nobel laureate, "it's very hard not to reach a conclusion that it was based on something different from scientific qualifications."
Department spokesman Bill Pierce said the appointments to many National Institutes of Health panels were made by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, not NIH directors such as Keusch.
"I completely reject the notion" that the administration is manipulating government science to bolster its policy aims, he said. "There's no evidence."
But Janet Rowley, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, said she had seen the misuse of science firsthand.
"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," Rowley said. She added that the administration, which opposes research with most embryonic stem cells, had exaggerated the usefulness of adult stem cells.
Richard Myers, director of the Stanford Human Genome Center, said he was rejected for a seat on the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research after he told an administration official that it was inappropriate to ask him his opinion of Bush, according to the report compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists. He later received the post after an NIH director interceded on his behalf.
© Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
###
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-science9jul09,1,424737,print.story?coll=la-news-a_section
http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/SITN/2004/0449.htm#S3492
evidence of political interference
The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (SEE CHART...TSS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, scientists who work for and advise the federal government have seen their work manipulated, suppressed, distorted, while agencies have systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical scientific information. To document this abuse, the Union of Concerned Scientists has created the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science.
From air pollution to Ground Zero, the A to Z Guide showcases dozens of examples of the misuse of science on issues like childhood lead poisoning, toxic mercury contamination, and endangered species.
View alphabetical list
View by issue area
View timeline
View by agency/department
10,000 Scientists Speak Out
As the list of examples of political interference in science has grown, so has concern from diverse groups of Americans, from ordinary citizens to members of Congress to the nation’s leading newspapers. Particular concern comes from the scientific community, as scientists know first hand that a healthy respect for independent science has been the foundation of American prosperity and contributed greatly to our quality of life.
In 2004, 62 renowned scientists and science advisors signed a scientist statement on scientific integrity, denouncing political interference in science and calling for reform. On December 9, 2006, UCS released the names of more than 10,000 scientists of all backgrounds from all 50 states—including 52 Nobel Laureates—who have since joined their colleagues on this statement.
If you are a scientist, you can add your voice to the statement right now. And all citizens can take action on a critical scientific integrity challenging us today: the EPA’s decision to hastily close its unique network of scientific libraries. Call today and tell the EPA to stop destroying documents, selling off library equipment, and limiting access to its critical scientific collection.
The United States government bears great responsibility for keeping our environment clean and Americans healthy and safe. And while science is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be objective and impartial.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html
statement
Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
————
On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents–signed the statement below, voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. UCS is seeking the signatures of thousands of additional U.S. scientists in support of this effort.
————
Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.
President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990
Attention Scientists
We need you to support this statement calling for an end to scientific abuse—now more than ever.
Creating meaningful reform will require the persistent and energetic engagement of the scientific community—in universities, laboratories, government agencies, and companies across the United States.
We need engineers and ecologists, physicists and physicians, psychologists and public health professionals—scientists of all disciplines.
Sign the statement today—click here.
For a sampling of prominent signatories, click here.
To search for your colleagues who are among the 12,000 plus current signers, click here.
Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.
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.
For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.
The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. "Clear Skies" would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation’s air and reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act.
Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon also based his decisions on such calculations he would not have supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which in the following 20 years prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Similarly, George H.W. Bush would not have supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and additional benefits of comparable proportions would have been lost.
The behavior of the White House on these issues is part of a pattern that has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, to observe, "How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations."
Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel:
Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration's policies or with the views of its political supporters.
The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.
In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education. To elevate the ethic that governs the relationship between science and government, Congress and the Executive should establish legislation and regulations that would:
Forbid censorship of scientific studies unless there is a reasonable national security concern;
Require all scientists on scientific advisory panels to meet high professional standards; and
Ensure public access to government studies and the findings of scientific advisory panels.
To maintain public trust in the credibility of the scientific, engineering and medical professions, and to restore scientific integrity in the formation and implementation of public policy, we call on our colleagues to:
Bring the current situation to public attention;
Request that the government return to the ethic and code of conduct which once fostered independent and objective scientific input into policy formation; and
Advocate legislative, regulatory and administrative reforms that would ensure the acquisition and dissemination of independent and objective scientific analysis and advice.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientists-signon-statement.html
See a list of prominent signatories
statement
RSI Signatories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signers of the scientists' statement on scientific integrity include 52 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 195 members of the National Academies. See the entire list of signers, here.
Note: Italicized names are those of the original signers of the statement
National Medal of Science *
Nobel Laureate †
Crafoord Prize #
The National Academies ^
Andreas Acrivos * ^
City College of the City University of New York
Edward Adelberg ^
Yale University
Eric Adelberger ^
University of Washington
Peter Agre † ^
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Richard M. Amasino ^
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Don L. Anderson * # ^
California Institute of Technology
Philip W. Anderson * † ^
Princeton University
Nancy C. Andreasen * ^
University of Iowa College of Medicine
John Avise ^
University of California, Irvine
Francisco J. Ayala * ^
University of California, Irvine
David Baltimore * † ^
California Institute of Technology
Guy Octo Barnett ^
Harvard University
John C. Beck ^
University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine
Michael V.L. Bennett ^
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Paul Berg * † ^
Stanford University School of Medicine
Robert Bergman ^
University of California, Berkeley
R. Stephen Berry ^
University of Chicago
Rosina Bierbaum
University of Michigan
Pamela Bjorkman ^
California Institute of Technology
Nicolaas Bloembergen * † ^
University of Arizona
Felix Boehm ^
California Institute of Technology
Paul D. Boyer † ^
University of California, Los Angeles
Lewis M. Branscomb ^
Harvard University
Ronald Breslow * ^
Columbia University
Robert H. Burris * ^
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Joost A. Businger ^
John Cairns, Jr. ^
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Hampton Carson ^
David M. Ceperley ^
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Eric Chivian †
Harvard Medical School
Joel E. Cohen ^
The Rockefeller University
Hael D. Collins ^
Carnegie Mellon University
Eugene Commins ^
University of California, Berkeley
Eric Conn ^
University of California, Davis
Robert W. Corell
American Meteorological Society
F. Albert Cotton * ^
Texas A&M University
Ernest Courant ^
Brookhaven National Laboratory
James Cronin * † ^
University of Chicago
James Crow ^
University of Wisconsin
James E. Darnell, Jr. * ^
The Rockefeller University
Margaret Davis ^
University of Minnesota
Mark Davis ^
University of California, Berkeley
Johann Deisenhofer † ^
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Robert C. DeVries ^
General Electric (Retired)
Theodor O. Diener * ^
University of Maryland
Carl Djerassi * ^
Stanford University
Paul M. Doty ^
Harvard University
Renato Dulbecco † ^
Salk Institute
Paul Ehrlich # ^
Stanford University
Herman Eisen ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Thomas Eisner * ^
Cornell University
S. Walter Englander ^
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
William K. Estes * ^
Indiana University
John B. Fenn † ^
Virginia Commonwealth University
Christopher Field ^
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Gerald D. Fischbach ^
Columbia University Medical School
Edmond Fischer † ^
University of Washington
Val L. Fitch * † ^
Princeton University
Jerry Franklin
University of Washington
Gerhart Friedlander ^
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Jerome Friedman † ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mary Gaillard ^
University of California, Berkeley
Richard L. Garwin * ^
International Business Machines Corporation
Murray Gell-Mann † ^
Santa Fe Institute
George Georgiou ^
University of Texas
John H. Gibbons ^
Former Science Advisor to the President
Walter Gilbert † ^
Harvard University
Donald A. Glaser † ^
University of California, Berkeley
Sheldon L. Glashow † ^
Boston University
Peter H. Gleick ^
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
Marvin L. Goldberger ^
California Institute of Technology
Lynn R. Goldman
John Hopkins School of Public Health
Peter Goldreich * ^
Institute for Advanced Study
Roy Gordon ^
Harvard University
Kurt Gottfried
Cornell University
William Greenough ^
University of Illinois
David Grimes
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Charles Gross ^
Princeton University
William Gross ^
University of New Mexico Engineering School
Keith Gubbins ^
North Carolina State University
Roger Guillemin * † ^
Salk Institute
Robert Hall ^
General Electric (Retired)
Henry C. Harpending ^
University of Utah
Richard Havel ^
University of California, San Francisco
Hans Herren ^
Millenium Institute
Dudley Herschbach * † ^
Harvard University
Joseph Hoffman ^
Yale Medical School, Yale University
Paul F. Hoffman ^
Harvard University
Roald Hoffmann * † ^
Cornell University
John P. Holdren ^
Harvard University
Norman Horowitz ^
California Institute of Technology
H. Robert Horvitz † ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
David H. Hubel † ^
Harvard University
John Huchra ^
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
J. David Jackson ^
University of California, Berkeley
Daniel H. Janzen # ^
University of Pennsylvania
Leo P. Kadanoff * ^
University of Chicago
Eric R. Kandel * † ^
Columbia University
Anne Kapuscinski
University of Minnesota
Jack Keller ^
Keller Bliesner Eng. LLC and Utah State Univ.
Kenneth H. Keller ^
University of Minnesota
Wolfgang Ketterle ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Gerald T. Keusch ^
Boston University
Daniel Kleppner ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Walter Kohn * † ^
University of California, Santa Barbara
Arthur Kornberg * † ^
Stanford University School of Medicine
Lawrence Krauss
Case Western Reserve University
Herbert Kroemer † ^
University of California, Santa Barbara
Neal F. Lane
Former Science Advisor to the President
Robert B. Laughlin † ^
Stanford University
Alexander Leaf ^
Harvard Medical School
Leon M. Lederman * † ^
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
David M. Lee † ^
Cornell University
Anthony Leggett † ^
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Sidney Leibovich ^
Cornell University
Simon Levin ^
Princeton University
Gene Likens * ^
Institute of Ecosystem Studies
William Lipscomb † ^
Harvard University
Barbara Liskov ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
George Lorimer ^
University of Maryland
Jane Lubchenco ^
Oregon State University
Michael C. MacCracken
International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences
Thomas F. Malone ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Geoffrey W. Marcy ^
University of California, Berkeley
Lynn Margulis * ^
University of Massachusetts
Paul A. Marks * ^
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Douglas S. Massey ^
Princeton University
James J. McCarthy
Harvard University
Harden M. McConnell * ^
Stanford University
Jerry M. Melillo
Woods Hole Research Center
N. David Mermin ^
Cornell University
Matthew S. Meselson ^
Harvard University
David Michaels
George Washington University
Charles D. Michener ^
University of Kansas
Mario Molina † ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
James Morgan ^
California Institute of Technology
Walter H. Munk * ^
University of California, San Diego
Joseph E. Murray † ^
Harvard Medical School
Herbert L. Needleman ^
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Louis Nirenberg * # ^
New York University
Marshall Nirenberg * † ^
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Michael Oppenheimer
Princeton University
Gordon Orians ^
University of Washington
Douglas D. Osheroff † ^
Stanford University
Jeremiah P. Ostriker * ^
Princeton University
George E. Palade * † ^
University of California, San Diego
W.K.H. Panofsky * ^
Stanford University
Eugene N. Parker * ^
University of Chicago
Fabian W. Pease ^
Stanford University
David Perkins ^
Stanford University
Martin L. Perl † ^
Stanford University
Thomas D. Petes ^
Duke University
Gregory Petsko ^
Brandeis University
Norman Phillips ^
National Weather Service
Stuart Pimm
Duke University
David Politzer †
California Institute of Technology
Robert V. Pound * ^
Harvard University
Ron Pulliam
University of Georgia
Norman F. Ramsey * † ^
Harvard University
Stuart A. Rice * ^
University of Chicago
Anthony Robbins
Tufts University School of Medicine
John D. Roberts * ^
California Institute of Technology
Wendell L. Roelofs * ^
Cornell University
Allan Rosenfield
Columbia University School of Public Health
John Ross * ^
Stanford University
F. Sherwood Rowland † ^
University of California, Irvine
Janet D. Rowley * ^
University of Chicago Medical Center
Gordon Roy ^
Harvard University
Vera Rubin * ^
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Eli Ruckenstein * ^
State University of New York at Buffalo
Liane Russell ^
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Jerome L. Sackman ^
University of California at Berkeley
Edwin E. Salpeter # ^
Cornell University
Allan Sandage * #
The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington
William Schlesinger ^
Duke University
William F. Schreiber ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
J. Robert Schrieffer * † ^
National High Magnetic Field Laboratory
Richard Schrock † ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Steven A. Schroeder ^
University of California, San Francisco
Albert Schultz ^
University of Michigan
Seymour I. Schwartz ^
University of California
Dana S. Scott ^
Carnegie Mellon University
Andrew Sessler ^
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Roger N. Shepard * ^
Stanford University
Robert Silbey ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Richard Smalley † ^
Rice University
Franklin Stahl ^
University of Oregon
Jack Steinberger * † ^
European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)
Joan A. Steitz * ^
Yale University School of Medicine
Felicia Stewart
University of California, San Francisco
Albert James Stunkard ^
University of Pennlsylvania
Henry Taube * † ^
Stanford University
Saul Teukolsky ^
Cornell University
E. Donnall Thomas * † ^
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
William Thurston ^
Cornell University
George Tilton ^
University of California, Santa Barbara
Kevin Trenberth
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Myron Tribus ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
George Trilling ^
University of California, Berkeley
Daniel Tsui † ^
Princeton University
Harold E. Varmus * † ^
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Gerald J. Wasserburg # ^
California Institute of Technology
Robert A. Weinberg * ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Steven Weinberg * † ^
University of Texas, Austin
Zena Werb ^
University of California
Frank H. Westheimer * ^
Harvard University
Gilbert F. White * ^
University of Colorado
Jennifer Widom ^
Stanford University
Eric Wieschaus † ^
Princeton University
Frank Wilczek † ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
E.O. Wilson * # ^
Harvard University
Elizabeth Wing ^
Florida Museum of Natural History
Edward Witten * ^
Institute for Advanced Study
Lincoln Wolfenstein ^
Carnegie Mellon University
George M. Woodwell ^
Woods Hole Research Center
Donald Wuebbles
University of Illinois
Keith Yamamoto ^
University of California, San Francisco
Charles Yanofsky ^*
Stanford University
Herbert F. York
University of California, San Diego
Bruno Zumino ^
University of California, Berkeley
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/prominent-statement-signatories.html
On December 9, 2006, UCS released the names of more than 10,000 scientists of all backgrounds from all 50 states—including 52 Nobel Laureates—who have since joined their colleagues on this statement.
http://go.ucsusa.org/RSI_list/
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Agencies slow in responding to FOIA requests
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:03:09 -0500
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0707&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=2679