Quote:
|
If a scientist questions the results of another scientist, the scientific community should resolve the dispute, who cares who provided who funding? Well it does matter if you want to score political points against the most profitable company in the world. So, I see Waxman as politicizing the issue.
|
I agree that the debate should be between scientists, but there is no reason why that debate cant occur in a political forum (ie Congressional hearing).
The problem exposed in the OP is that it is not the scientific community, but policy wonks (political appointees) in the EPA, NOAA, USGS, FDA, Fish/Wildlife Service, etc. who are allegedly "editing" or suppressing government studies by career scientists that do not support the Bush ideological agenda.
I dont see holding hearings, which the Repubs were reluctant to do, as "politicizing" the issue. That is the oversight role of Congress. (Sen. Imhofe - "there will never be hearings on global warming as long as I am around...")
BTW, Waxman first made his reputation 20+ years ago by being one of the few members of Congress willing to take on the tobacco industry. A bad thing to do? Politicizing the dangers of smoking by exposing the blatant lies and cover-ups of the industry?
link