I assumed by this point someone would have gone through the items cited in DC's post and point out the most compelling arguments supporting the premise in this thread. It has not happened, I wonder why?
I looked at the second item "BE" for bioethics. Here is the issue:
Quote:
|
In another clear case of political interference in the science advisory appointment process, on February 27, 2004, the Bush administration dismissed Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, a leading cell biologist, and Dr. William May, a prominent medical ethicist, from the President's Council on Bioethics.
|
Quote:
|
Dr. Blackburn states that she believes she was dismissed because she disapproved of the Bush administration's restrictive position on stem cell research. According to Dr. Blackburn, she and Dr. May frequently disagreed with the administration's positions on the ethics of biomedical research.117 She was removed from the panel soon after she objected to a Council report on stem cell research. In an essay in the April 1, 2004, issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Blackburn recounted how the dissenting opinion she submitted, which she believes reflects the scientific consensus in America, was not included in the council's reports even though she had been told the reports would represent the views of all the council's members.
|
Quote:
|
The removal of Drs. Blackburn and May—and the subsequent appointment of new panel members who are supportive of the administration's stated positions, significantly limits the range of views now available to the president on bioethical issues. This action violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, which requires balance on such advisory bodies.119 As Dr. Blackburn herself has pointed out, she was one of only three full-time biomedical scientists on the panel, which, even prior to her dismissal, was weighted heavily to nonscientists with strong ideological views. While no one disputes that nonscientists should play an important role on a bioethics panel, it is equally important that scientists, with strong biomedical expertise, provide the necessary scientific context for the panel.
|
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...bioethics.html
For DC's benefit I went to the Bioethic website and obtained its mission statement:
Quote:
a. The Council shall advise the President on bioethical issues that may emerge as a consequence of advances in biomedical science and technology. In connection with its advisory role, the mission of the Council includes the following functions:
1. to undertake fundamental inquiry into the human and moral significance of developments in biomedical and behavioral science and technology;
2. to explore specific ethical and policy questions related to these developments;
3. to provide a forum for a national discussion of bioethical issues;
4. to facilitate a greater understanding of bioethical issues; and
5. to explore possibilities for useful international collaboration on bioethical issues.
|
And here is info on membership:
Quote:
Section 3. Membership.
a. The Council shall be composed of not more than 18 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not officers or employees of the Federal Government. The Council shall include members drawn from the fields of science and medicine, law and government, philosophy and theology, and other areas of the humanities and social sciences.
|
http://www.bioethics.gov/about/executive.html
The Council was established by executive order November 2001. The members are political appointees. They serve at the pleasure of the President and the Council was formed by the President, Bush. Nothing was undone by Bush. And since Bush established the Council for his own reasons, it is not logical to say he is interfering with the Council. The Council can be ended at anytime by the President.
On the issue in question, Stem Cell Research, President Bush has clearly defined views on how he believes stem cells should be used. He communicated his views clearly both times he ran for president. The science is not a political issue, but you can not argue that the ethics involved in using, not using, how to obtain them, etc, is a political issue. To many it is a moral issue. Iranically, those scientists, ASCB, who signed petitions in opposition to the removal of Dr. Blackburn, have a political dog in the fight. They have a standing committee with the purpose as stated below:
Quote:
Public Policy Committee
The Public Policy Committee regularly educates Congress and the Administration about the importance of basic biomedical funding and policy.
|
http://www.ascb.org/index.cfm?navid=127
They want to make sure government is willing to fund their work and are willing to play the political game to do it.
Again, it seems to me that we are talking about the role government should play in dealing with scientific issues that warrant political input as opposed to direct interference with the science itself. Perhaps the subtlety of the difference is being lost, or the Bush haters are just making noise.
I am looking forward to the next one, should be fun.
