Bush-League Lysenkoism

The following is a statement from the editors of Scientific American:

Starting in the 1930s, the Soviets spurned genetics in favor of Lysenkoism, a fraudulent theory of heredity inspired by Communist ideology. Doing so crippled agriculture in the U.S.S.R. for decades. You would think that bad precedent would have taught President George W. Bush something. But perhaps he is no better at history than at science.

In February his White House received failing marks in a statement signed by 62 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and advisers to the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. It begins, "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.... The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle."

Doubters of that judgment should read the report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that accompanies the statement, "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making" (available at www.ucsusa.org). Among the affronts that it details: The administration misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences and other experts on climate change. It meddled with the discussion of climate change in an Environmental Protection Agency report until the EPA eliminated that section. It suppressed another EPA study that showed that the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act would do less than current law to reduce air pollution and mercury contamination of fish. It even dropped independent scientists from advisory committees on lead poisoning and drug abuse in favor of ones with ties to industry.

Let us offer more examples of our own. The Department of Health and Human Services deleted information from its Web sites that runs contrary to the president's preference for "abstinence only" sex education programs. The Office of Foreign Assets Control made it much more difficult for anyone from "hostile nations" to be published in the U.S., so some scientific journals will no longer consider submissions from them. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed overhauling peer review for funding of science that bears on environmental and health regulations--in effect, industry scientists would get to approve what research is conducted by the EPA.

None of those criticisms fazes the president, though. Less than two weeks after the UCS statement was released, Bush unceremoniously replaced two advocates of human embryonic stem cell research on his advisory Council on Bioethics with individuals more likely to give him a hallelujah chorus of opposition to it.

Blind loyalists to the president will dismiss the UCS report because that organization often tilts left--never mind that some of those signatories are conservatives. They may brush off this magazine's reproofs the same way, as well as the regular salvos launched by California Representative Henry A. Waxman of the House Government Reform Committee [see Insights] and maybe even Arizona Senator John McCain's scrutiny for the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. But it is increasingly impossible to ignore that this White House disdains research that inconveniences it.

CRN will not take a position on the current U.S. presidential contest. Our desire is that whichever candidate wins the election, he will encourage -- no, demand -- that scientific advisory bodies consider evidence and issue opinions based solely on scientific merit, as free as possible from the taint of political influence.

Our stance of partisan neutrality is not a pose. The issues raised by advanced nanotechnology and exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing will dwarf any of this year's political debates -- and many of those are of great importance. But when the very existence of the human race may be at stake, not to mention the health, well-being, and potential thriving of billions who suffer from unspeakable poverty and deprivation, everything else fades away.

We will continue to push aggressively for all world leaders, including the next U.S. President, to make understanding of and preparation for the serious societal implications of nanotechnology a top priority.

Mike Treder

Comments

[Janessa Ravenwood]

I'm still voting for Bush, but his stance on Stem Cell Research seriously pisses me off. That and actually appointing LEON KASS (!!!) to any kind of scientific advisory position makes my blood boil.

Current circumstances make me a single issue voter (national security) but these types of stances irk me to no end.

[Mr. Farlops]

Given that Iraq and Afghanistan continue to fester (Funny how the administration can't even agree with itself on what to do next.), that we are still no safer from terrorism despite draconic invasions of privacy and that we've alienated almost all of our allies, it seems that Bush's vaunted, tough-guy national security isn't all that it's cracked up to be either.

But of course I am biased. I didn't vote for him last time and will breathe a tremendous sigh of relief if he's voted out this time.

[Karl Gallagher]

I'm with Janessa.

[Kurt]

Janessa, write your representative and senators to get the bioethics council either abolished or reformed such that its mandate is limited to reproductive technology ONLY.

There are suggested outlines of such a letter on the immortalist institute's website: www.imminst.org.

I have already written to my representatives on this issue.

I am also disappointed at CRN's lack of a pro-active stance on "transhuman" rights issues (morphological freedom, healthy life extension) as well. I am apposed to and will work to oppose any regulatory regime or proposal on biotech and nanotech that does not explicity support "transhuman" rights.

[Karl Gallagher]

Kurt, I think CRN's bit off a lot to chew already, I wouldn't urge them to add anything more to it.

[Mr. Farlops]

I agree with Kurt, assuming Bush gets another four years, the only other viable paths for advocates of scientific research (Specifically biotech research and nanotechnology.) is to write to or lobby Congress to restrain the foolishness of the Executive.

It may not matter anyway. If academe, environmentalists and industry get the idea that the Bush Administration is going to slow scientific research that it finds objectionable, that research will just migrate to other countries whose governments are more open-minded.

On the other hand, I agree with Karl. CRN is just two hardworking volunteers; they have plenty on their plate! They can ally with other MNT advocacy organizations, like Foresight, and use member donations to lobby Congress though.

If we get another four years, I plan to donate a little more hard-earned money to organizations like Foresight and CRN.

[Mike Treder, CRN]

Why wait? Donate now!
:^)

[jim moore]

I think that there is only one good option for the United States, and that is to give Bush the boot. I can't imagine how bad things will get if he remains in office.
On national security look what he has done:
- ignored repeated warnings about impending terrorist attacks before 9/11. ( a big strike but redeemable)
-Over threw the Taliban and destroyed Bin Ladins' training centers. (very good thing)
-Diverting attention and resources from Afaganistan and northern Pakistan. Lawless areas that terrorists take refuge in. (a very bad thing shows you haven't learned and are not focused on the people who attacked us.)
-Started a war against Iraq, justifying it with false information. (extremely bad, at least 10,000 innocent people have been killed and God only knows how many people have been injured. The credibility of this administration is shot to hell)
-Started the war with plenty of troops to over through the Iraqi government but not enough to occupy the country. (shows a inability to plan for the clearly foreseeable consequences of their actions)
-Has allowed a culture of abuse to form in the treatment of prisoners and detainees. (this is a crime)

If the american people elect Bush we will be endorsing a violent and incompetent administration.

[Mike Deering]

It is reasonable for CRN to remain politically neutral. They need to work with who ever happens to be in power at the time. Unfortunately this reasonable approach won't work with the Bush administration. They don't want to work with neutrals but only with people who are firmly and loudly in their corner. Consequently, CRN should immediately declare their support for Bush's policies and find a way to fit CRN's agenda into the Bush philosophy. And if Carey should win, rapidly reverse positions. He appreciates waffling.

But seriously, do you want me to tell you what is going to happen in the next twelve months? Okay. When it becomes obvious that Bush can not win the election he will attempt to fix it, failing that he will cancel the election on some national security pretense. There will be no orderly transfer of power this time. The Supreme Court has given Bush the authority to declare anyone, including any U.S. citizen, an enemy combatant and hold them incommunicado without charge indefinitely. Do you think there is an exclusion for political opponents? Think again. The U.S. and the world already has an Emperor, we just don't know it yet.

[Brett Bellmore]

" failing that he will cancel the election on some national security pretense."

Amusingly, conservatives had somewhat similar expectations of Clinton. Trust me, it isn't going to happen, for much the same reason Clinton couldn't have done it... The Secret Service isn't THAT good! LOL

Maybe we could turn this back to nanotech instead of politics?