Sandhusker said:
Fine, if you don't think the USDA is trustworthy enough that they would orchestrate a coverup on animal health, why do you trust them when they say it's safe to open the border?
i dont sandhusker, and neither do a great deal of other folks ;
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
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
see more damning cover-up by our federal criminals ;
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/168556f5aa7a82ba85256ed00044eb1f/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08d
tss