Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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....
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`  |
Go for it, ace!
With each additional post where you highlight examples from the Union of Concerned Scientists report, you further expose how Bush politicizes science far more than previous presidents.
In your latest about the Bioethics Council, you included a portion of the mission statement:
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.
but you conveniently neglected to include the section:
c. The Council shall strive to develop a deep and comprehensive understanding of the issues that it considers. In pursuit of this goal, the Council shall be guided by the need to articulate fully the complex and often competing moral positions on any given issue, rather than by an overriding concern to find consensus. The Council may therefore choose to proceed by offering a variety of views on a particular issue, rather than attempt to reach a single consensus position.
So what does Bush do?
His lackies suppress dissenting opinions from Council reports and he replaces members of the Council who express such opinions because they dont fit his ideological and political agenda.
Quote:
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.
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.
|
Is that what you consider
"striving to develop a deep and comprehensive understanding of the issue" or
"articulating fully the complex and often competing moral positions" or
"offering a variety of views"?
An impartial observer might consider the Council's act of suppressing one point of view and Bush's action to remove qualified MDs based on their opposing view on the issue as putting politics and ideology above an open, honest and comprehensive discussion of the science, medicine and bioethics. So much for the Council being able to fulfill its objective mission.
Thanks again for making my case for me.
I am looking forward to your next analysis, should be fun .