Former Surgeon General Complains of Censure, Manipulation

[NorthSideSox72]

Bush's first Surgeon General, Dr. Richard Carmona, says that his speeches and statements were edited, deleted and/or interfered with during his tenure on such subjects as stem cell research, teen pregnancy and second hand smoke. This isn't really a surprise, of course, and it happens to at least an extent in all Presidencies. BushCo of course has tended to go much further with it, but its not really new behavior.

 

So here is the question, which I would like to hear opinions on. When is it appropriate for Presidents to censor or edit statements from the nation's leading representatives of scientific communities, such as medicine and space exploration? I personally have no problem with some of it, to fit their agenda. But I do think there is a limit. The Surgeon General is not supposed to be spouting a political agenda, but instead informing the nation and the government of the latest data, research and good health practices. If he is being told to leave major issues out or manipulate representation of facts, I don't think that's appropriate.

 

How do others feel about this?

[Soxy]

I heard the jury's still out on science.

 

Obviously I'm a bit biased here. I do keep general tabs on the big headlines of science, but I sure as hell don't get it from mainstream news. I'll look up source articles or periodically take a gander through one of the "big" journals (science, nature, etc). I admit I'm a science snob. So, I don't really listen to what the current administration says about science, because I'd rather hear from the scientists. I also realize that that not all Americans are educated consumers of science (which has roots in our educational system--but I digress), so I think it's important they have access to an accurate portrayal of current findings but, sadly, naive to expect it from the land of politicians and lobbyists.

 

Speaking of Science--where's Balta been lately?

[kapkomet]

I heard the jury's still out on science.

 

Obviously I'm a bit biased here. I do keep general tabs on the big headlines of science, but I sure as hell don't get it from mainstream news. I'll look up source articles or periodically take a gander through one of the "big" journals (science, nature, etc). I admit I'm a science snob. So, I don't really listen to what the current administration says about science, because I'd rather hear from the scientists. I also realize that that not all Americans are educated consumers of science (which has roots in our educational system--but I digress), so I think it's important they have access to an accurate portrayal of current findings but, sadly, naive to expect it from the land of politicians and lobbyists.

 

Speaking of Science--where's Balta been lately?

He's off in the never-never land of Northwest Indiana getting married and stuff.

[Soxy]

He's off in the never-never land of Northwest Indiana getting married and stuff.

Ah yes, 'tis the marriage season. . .

[kapkomet]

I must say now is a better time then December 29th. My B-I-L and his fiancee are getting married that weekend. Crazy.

 

Hey, NSS, I heard that the moon landing was staged and used for political gain.

 

Anyway, I digress.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So here is the question, which I would like to hear opinions on. When is it appropriate for Presidents to censor or edit statements from the nation's leading representatives of scientific communities, such as medicine and space exploration?

 

Never.

 

If scientists feel strongly the need to communicate an opinion of some sort to the general public, the appropriate agency spokespersons should be allowed to do so unfettered and uncensored. Opinions will always be given in terms of some percent confidence which means there will be ample room for dissenters in and out of the scientific community to engage in open and informed debate.

 

It is antithetical for the scientific community to have to skirt relevant societal issues and hide 'truth' (or at least their current approximation of it based on valid research) when the entire point of science is the pursuit of those truths (or reasonable working approximations thereof).

[Jenksismyhero]

If scientists feel strongly the need to communicate an opinion of some sort to the general public

 

A gut feeling perhaps?

 

 

I have no problem with it so long as they are editing unsubstantiated opinion and not fact. Much like journalism these days, the scientific community has been spouting opinion, and not theory based on fact.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

A gut feeling perhaps?

I have no problem with it so long as they are editing unsubstantiated opinion and not fact. Much like journalism these days, the scientific community has been spouting opinion, and not theory based on fact.

While there are scientists out there who do that, to say its somehow prevalent or common is ridiculous (by comparing it to media, who does it constantly, you insinuate its commonplace).

 

This administration has a habit of editing anything hinting at the possibility of Global Warming (at least until very recently). That isn't editing opinion - its trying to manipulate science.

[kapkomet]

What about the argument that global warming is a manipulation of what's really (not) happening?

[Soxy]

What about the argument that global warming is a manipulation of what's really (not) happening?

Okay, give me 5 primary sources that say something to that effect. And I mean from peer reviewed actual academic scholarly articles.

[kapkomet]

So am I just going to get that post every time I post a "gut feeling"?

 

 

The truth is, you can't PROVE, nor can these other people, PROVE beyond 100% shadow of a doubt that "global warming" exists. Let me put it this way. About 99% of the "global warming" scientists wouldn't have a job or funding to do research if they said it was just "climatalogical changes" in the earth and that humanity couldn't destroy earth (short of a nuclear explosion) if they tried. The earth will always adapt and change.

[StrangeSox]

So am I just going to get that post every time I post a "gut feeling"?

 

 

The truth is, you can't PROVE, nor can these other people, PROVE beyond 100% shadow of a doubt that "global warming" exists. Let me put it this way. About 99% of the "global warming" scientists wouldn't have a job or funding to do research if they said it was just "climatalogical changes" in the earth and that humanity couldn't destroy earth (short of a nuclear explosion) if they tried. The earth will always adapt and change.

 

We might not destroy earth, but it might change and adapt into an uninhabitable climate for several thousand years.

 

Global warming exists without a doubt. The center of debate now is on the cause of it, is the rate of change something to cause alarm, and if there's anything we can or should do about it.

[BigSqwert]

The truth is, you can't PROVE, nor can these other people, PROVE beyond 100% shadow of a doubt that "global warming" exists.

You can't PROVE beyond 100% shadow of a doubt that "gravity" exists. So what's your point?

[NorthSideSox72]

The truth is, you can't PROVE, nor can these other people, PROVE beyond 100% shadow of a doubt that "global warming" exists. Let me put it this way. About 99% of the "global warming" scientists wouldn't have a job or funding to do research if they said it was just "climatalogical changes" in the earth and that humanity couldn't destroy earth (short of a nuclear explosion) if they tried. The earth will always adapt and change.

Now that is ridiculous. When THOUSANDS of serious, peer-reviewed scientific articles and the great majority of the scientific community all agree on it, but literally 2 or 3 do not... you cannot say that 99% of them are somehow motivated by funding concerns.

 

Also, of course the planet will adapt and change. That is the whole point. The earth is a living organism, and its way of "adapting" is far better than any technology we possess at protecting itself. And if we are the ones damaging ecosystems, then who do you think will feel the results? The earth will be fine. WE won't. That is the reason why conservationism and environmentalism are so important.

 

Oh yeah, and nice obfuscation of the point. We are talking about the government censoring scientific findings here. And frankly, if something so overwhelmingly scientifically backed can simply be edited by the government as being "opinion", then what is the point of having scientific work by the government at all? You might as well hand over our research, science and development to Penn and Teller. If it can all be edited, cloaked in mystery or hidden from view, its worthless.

[Gregory Pratt]

The thing that makes me sick is he was told not to bother with the Special Olympics because of the Kennedy's involvement with it. Someone who used to be high up in the Administration (either in the Faith-Based realm or Paul O'Neill) said that these guys were more interested in inbreeding than the mod and are more vindictive than Nixon, but that's ridiculous.

 

Here, from my Office of the Independent Blogger entry, I'll highlight the other things that bother me because mentioned specifically, they're even more disturbing.

 

(Spin) Doctor Pratt on the news that the former Surgeon General (under President Bush) is leveling the Administration with criticism, including the claim that Bush made him mention Bush three times per page per speech; forced him to attend political meetings; suppressed his reports on stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues, and second-hand smoke; and, most disturbing of all, told him to avoid the Special Olympics because Ted Kennedy and his family were involved with the organization and, “Why would you want to help those people?”: “The President has no comment.”

 

I know someone once referred to this regime as the "Mayberry Machiavellis" and it's far better than they deserve.

[Soxy]

So am I just going to get that post every time I post a "gut feeling"?

 

 

The truth is, you can't PROVE, nor can these other people, PROVE beyond 100% shadow of a doubt that "global warming" exists. Let me put it this way. About 99% of the "global warming" scientists wouldn't have a job or funding to do research if they said it was just "climatalogical changes" in the earth and that humanity couldn't destroy earth (short of a nuclear explosion) if they tried. The earth will always adapt and change.

Nope, you won't get it everytime you post a gut feeling--but when your gut feeling can easily be supported or not with a simple lit search, you better bet your ass I'm going to ask you to back up your opinions.

 

As for your theory about funding, back it up. Tell me how you know about how funding of scientific research works. Because what you say is absolute bulls***. Plenty of research gets done that doesn't necessarily have to have an immediate application (that is why we call it basic research). So, please enlighten me about how grants really work.

 

And you're right, nothing is every proven. But when you have empirical evidence that is all pointing in the same direction, well, that tells me that a theory is doing a damn fine job of predicting what it should.

[FlaSoxxJim]

But when you have empirical evidence that is all pointing in the same direction, well, that tells me that a theory is doing a damn fine job of predicting what it should.

 

Must be a mountain of damn good evidence if you rushed clean past hypothesis and elevated straight to theory status.

 

Somebody's going to make you retake those comps if you keep throwing around the T-word so freely.

 

[Soxy]

Must be a mountain of damn good evidence if you rushed clean past hypothesis and elevated straight to theory status.

 

Somebody's going to make you retake those comps if you keep throwing around the T-word so freely.

 

I am not going to lie, we aren't even to hypothesis stage yet in my area. We're still wandering around in the pseudoscientific wilderness with our thumbs up our asses.

 

How about we call where the global warming stuff is "paradigmatic selection phase." Would a little Kuhn tickle your fancy here?

 

 

(On a related note: how do you feel speech production and perception are related? )

[FlaSoxxJim]

I am not going to lie, we aren't even to hypothesis stage yet in my area. We're still wandering around in the pseudoscientific wilderness with our thumbs up our asses.

 

How about we call where the global warming stuff is "paradigmatic selection phase." Would a little Kuhn tickle your fancy here?

(On a related note: how do you feel speech production and perception are related? )

 

You scientists and yer' fancy wurds.

 

I like most of Kuhn's take on the history of science, and his notion of scientific advance being the result of revolutionary paridigm shifts rather than gradualism had enough of an Eldridge and Gould saltatory bent to it that, yes indeed, he tickles my fancy.

 

Life in the wilderness of pre-science is not a bad thing though. Nobody knows enough yet to tell you how wrong your ideas are.

 

Far as perception and speech production. . .er, uhm. . . I got nuthin', you're on your own.

[Jenksismyhero]

You can't PROVE beyond 100% shadow of a doubt that "gravity" exists. So what's your point?

 

Really? You can't? So if you drop an apple a million times it might not fall once or twice? How has gravity NOT been proven?

 

Here's the distinction (which I've been harping on for about the past year on this board): I agree 'global warming,' however you want to define that, does indeed exist. And I agree that 99% of the sane science world also agrees with that. However, the number drops significantly when you start talking about the cause of global warming and the effect that it has/will have. This is a distinction that gets glossed over by the likes of Al "im serial" Gore. You don't have the same kind of debate with gravity and its existence.

 

Thus, if the surgeon general or any other scientific research group with 'government' in its title starts spouting that global warming exists and its a 'fact' that its caused by humans and will kill us all, that's when I have zero problem with the White House, or any government oversight committee, editing that crap to shreds. That's what I mean by the influx of opinion writing versus fact writing that does indeed persist through most of the professional world these days.

 

And blame the evil-doers Bush Co all you want, but the fact is global warming is a liberal issue that moronic liberals think will buy them a ticket to the White House (*cough Al Gore *cough). So of course the Repubs are going to try to downplay it while liberals try to play it up like the greatest human disaster in the history of the world...hmm shocker, An Inconvenient Truth.

 

I guess I just don't see the big deal, so long as he's not editing reports so that they all end with "and God created..." or something ridiculous like that.

[NorthSideSox72]

And blame the evil-doers Bush Co all you want, but the fact is global warming is a liberal issue that moronic liberals think will buy them a ticket to the White House (*cough Al Gore *cough). So of course the Repubs are going to try to downplay it while liberals try to play it up like the greatest human disaster in the history of the world...hmm shocker, An Inconvenient Truth.

I am just amazed that people can still think that, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence otherwise, which you even mention earlier in the same post.

 

You know what? I have seen much more believable evidence that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government, than I have for the idea that global warming is not at least partially related to human activity. Up until now though, of course, I didn't believe either of those things because both sets of evidence are laughably weak. But, maybe I'll take the current conservative way of thinking - pick the reality of a situation that I wish were true, believe it is, and then dismiss any sort of logic or science in favor of gut feelings, god's will or some talking head on the radio/TV to back up my point of view.

 

9/11 was a conspiracy - my cat told me so.

[kapkomet]

I wish I didn't have so much to do - because I'd seriously put together research that dismisses the notion of HUMAN CAUSED global warming. (there's a key phrase there).

[NorthSideSox72]

I wish I didn't have so much to do - because I'd seriously put together research that dismisses the notion of HUMAN CAUSED global warming. (there's a key phrase there).

And all that research should ALSO see the light of day. That is the point here - allowing science to be science, instead of trying to turn it into an advertising campaign by the administration.

 

Fortunately, much of it does anyway, regardless of attempted intimidation. But some of it undoubtedly isn't, which begs another question... what do we not know?

[kapkomet]

I guess it comes back to more or less what Jenks was saying. It's politicized on both sides so bad that the "truth", whatever it is, is completely off base.

 

I don't care what Soxy says, most "scientists" tend to be more "liberal" in their thinking, and align themselves with "Democrat" principles in this country. The European scientists, well, they are going to have the "social" slant anyway. It's just the way it is. I use these terms "loosely" to describe political persuasion, not to "insult" a way of thinking.

 

You can put a hypothesis out there and pull out of your ass anything you want to support your point of view, even in a "lab" setting. Your findings aren't supposed to be biased, but if you think HUMAN CAUSED global warming exists, then damn near everything you're looking for is going to try and support that notion.

 

And it's true on the flip side. If I go gather a bunch of data that "debunks" the HUMAN CAUSED global warming hysteria, then I become biased.

 

So what do we know, rather then what do we not know?

[NorthSideSox72]

You can put a hypothesis out there and pull out of your ass anything you want to support your point of view, even in a "lab" setting. Your findings aren't supposed to be biased, but if you think HUMAN CAUSED global warming exists, then damn near everything you're looking for is going to try and support that notion.

No Kap, you can't. That's not science. Yes, scientists sometimes introduce bias when they desire a certain outcome. But in reading your graf here, if what you say is true, then all science is pointless (your quote: you can pull anything out of your ass). Which of course goes right back to what I said earlier - if you dismiss science en masse like that, then some people will feel better, because they can choose to believe whatever they want, regardless of facts or evidence. At that point, we cease to be a thinking society, and revert back to believing the earth is flat.

 

You can choose to live in denial, or you can choose to accept when things sometimes aren't what you want them to be (and maybe even change them). I'd rather accept this reality and try to adapt to it or change it, then spend my energy trying really hard to pretend it isn't true.