America in Reverse - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 03:20 AM

I can see absolutely no reason for this, other than an attempt to control a population through propaganda. I am sure we all know this has taken place before on some level, but it would seem this Administration has gone overboard in its manipulation of science to keep people ignorant.

This pisses me off more than lying for some reason:

Quote:

Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona denounces Bush administration’s political interference

WASHINGTON | President Bush’s first surgeon general testified Tuesday that his speeches were censored to match administration political positions.

He was prevented from giving the public accurate scientific information on issues such as stem-cell research and teen pregnancy prevention, he said.

“Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried,” Richard Carmona, surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, told a congressional committee. “The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party.”

http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/185250.html

The new guy likely wont care anyway....as he seems to be biased against the sciences (the guy founded an Anti-Gay church) from the get go.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/01/...neral-nominee/

FoolThemAll · 07-11-2007, 03:51 AM

(tangent)
Gotta love that article title. "Bush Nominates Homophobic Surgeon General Who Wants To Cure Gays". If the dude's founding a church that wants to deal directly with homosexual people and 'help' them, the dude's probably not friggin' homophobic. May not even be bigoted in any meaningful sense of the word. Why make these dubious near-unprovable charges? Isn't it enough that he's wrong?
(/tangent)

But yeah, that nomination seemed like a really bad joke. What's next, Michael Behe as education czar?

aceventura3 · 07-11-2007, 04:38 AM

Carmona would support making tobacco products illegal. I guess he is not above having his own political agenda. Informing people of the negative impact of tobacco is one thing, taking away informed choice is another.

Quote:

Asked if he would "support the abolition of all tobacco products," Carmona told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee investigating smokeless tobacco and other reduced risk tobacco products, "I would support banning or abolishing tobacco products." Carmona equivocated when asked if he would support a law to ban tobacco, saying "legislation is not my field," but then reiterated his support for criminalizing tobacco. "If Congress chose to go that way, that would be up to them," he said, "but I see no need for any tobacco products in society."

In stark contrast to its position on illicit drugs, the Bush administration was quick to back away from Carmon's comments. "That is not the policy of the administration," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "The president supports efforts to crack down on youth smoking, and we can do more as a society to keep tobacco away from kids. That's our focus."

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-...hibition.shtml

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Carmona would support making tobacco products illegal. I guess he is not above having his own political agenda. Informing people of the negative impact of tobacco is one thing, taking away informed choice is another.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-...hibition.shtml

Whats your take on the actual topic of discussion though? Are you concerned at all that the sciences were corrupted by government intervention? Do you think it acceptable to limit knowledge in favor of an agenda, at this level? Does the position this man takes on tobacco, nullify what he has to say on the censorship issue?

Inquiring minds want to know.

seretogis · 07-11-2007, 06:15 AM

Believe it or not, the sciences have always been politicized and censored by those in power. Remember that whole the-earth-is-round controversy? No, it's not right that facts and truth are smothered by theological nonsense, but it isn't something new.

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

Believe it or not, the sciences have always been politicized and censored by those in power. Remember that whole the-earth-is-round controversy? No, it's not right that facts and truth are smothered by theological nonsense, but it isn't something new.

Agreed, it happens all the time. Here though, we have the person expected to help our country understand and use the sciences to benefit the population,prevented on a grand level from doing so by the very people we trust to help him. For the first time I have ever seen, we have the nations top scientist (for all intent and purpose), forced to rewrite the science by the leaders of the country.

I find it completely unacceptable. I have stood by watching the corruption of so many aspects of our nation....but do not fuck with my science.

dc_dux · 07-11-2007, 07:11 AM

tecoyah:

An investigative report by the House Committee on Govt Reform in 2003 found that the Bush administration interfered or suppressed scientific studies and findings by government agencies in numerous areas for political purposes: abstinence only education, agricultural pollution, arctic national wildlife refuge, breast cancer, condoms, drinking water, global warming, HIV/AIDS, lead poisoning, missile defense, oil and gas, stem cell research, wetlands, ......

The report concluded:

Federal agencies with global reputations for scientific excellence depend upon the objective input of leading scientists and the impartial analysis of scientific evidence to develop effective policies. The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly suppressed, distorted or obstructed science to suit political and ideological goals. These actions go far beyond the traditional influence that Presidents are permitted to wield at federal agencies and compromise the integrity of scientific policymaking.

Report (pdf):
http://oversight.house.gov/features/...cience_rep.pdf

More reports: http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?ID=239

But I guess (per our other discussion and the "ace' standards), it has no validity until something is found to be illegal or persons are found guilty of something in a court of law.

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

tecoyah:

An investigative report by the House Committee on Govt Reform in 2003 found that the Bush administration interfered or suppressed scientific studies and findings by government agencies in numerous areas for political purposes: abstinence only education, agricultural pollution, arctic national wildlife refuge, breast cancer, condoms, drinking water, global warming, HIV/AIDS, lead poisoning, missile defense, oil and gas, stem cell research, wetlands, ......

The report concluded:

Federal agencies with global reputations for scientific excellence depend upon the objective input of leading scientists and the impartial analysis of scientific evidence to develop effective policies. The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly suppressed, distorted or obstructed science to suit political and ideological goals. These actions go far beyond the traditional influence that Presidents are permitted to wield at federal agencies and compromise the integrity of scientific policymaking.

Report (pdf):
http://oversight.house.gov/features/...cience_rep.pdf

But I guess (per our other discussion and the "ace' standards), it has no validity until something is found to be illegal or persons are found guilty of something in a court of law.

Unfortunately....you surmise correctly. It would seem that incremental corruption of a thing goes generally unnoted by legal standards, and though I am well aware of the destruction of EPA standards,the Pharmacy Fiasco, and any number of other issues this administration has created in its misguided (to me) attempts to shore up corporations,until the former SG came forward there was no substantial way to accuse them. The scientific community has put forward several damning reports on the way they are "stifled" by the administration to no affect. Perhaps this will add the needed voice to change the practice.....perhaps not.

aceventura3 · 07-11-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Whats your take on the actual topic of discussion though? Are you concerned at all that the sciences were corrupted by government intervention? Do you think it acceptable to limit knowledge in favor of an agenda, at this level? Does the position this man takes on tobacco, nullify what he has to say on the censorship issue?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't think government should be in the business of science. Government should make laws based on the will of the people, by definition "political", and we should understand that science is best served when there is no government involvement. The US Surgeon General is a political position. The office, in my opinion, is to bridge scientific research and public policy. If our elected President sets a general policy of being against the use of stem cells, the US Surgeon General has an obligation to support that position or resign from his appointed post. I have never assumed information coming from the office of the US Surgeon General was anything other than propaganda supporting the political agenda (even when the data presented is true) of the White House.

Scientist should do their work independent of government. They should fund their own research or understand that they will have various types of pressure from the source of their funding including pressure to support certain preconceived conclusions. This would be true of scientist receiving funding from virtually all sources. The best scientists recognize and are able to manage these potential conflicts while doing their work in an impartial manner.

Almost everyone has an "agenda" when they give money.
My concern is not with the attempts to "corrupt" scientists by government or private sources of funds, but when scientists actually corrupt their work for whatever their reasons.

ubertuber · 07-11-2007, 07:38 AM

If the government goes out and gets an Attorney General - a person who is presumed to be a health care professional and a scientist - and only lets them say predetermined things... Well, that's not science at all, it's just propaganda. I wonder how nominees for the position would feel if it were made clear to them that their job description is "propagandist".

aceventura3 · 07-11-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But I guess (per our other discussion and the "ace' standards), it has no validity until something is found to be illegal or persons are found guilty of something in a court of law.

Why not just back off?

You made a charge that I twisted and turned evidence. Seems to me you are making an attempt to twist and turn information, to trivialize my opinion. The pattern I have seen is when you get frustrated you revert to this tactic. It is pretty obvious.

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 07:47 AM

So, in essence the Government should forgo funding the advancement of technological growth, and simply allow for private investment to guide economic growth within the technology sector, regardless of the impact stagnation could create within the population. It should also ignore scientific study in favor of a stable status quo, until forced to react to innovation elsewhere in the world.
I suppose that is an option, but fail to see how such a path would lead to prosperity. The future of most economic growth in the coming decades will require a supportive atmosphere from every direction, unless we simply wish to live off of second hand science. Misdirection of Data, by any entity is in my opinion a terrible wrong and one of the most counter-productive things we can do. Having it handed down by the federal government has the effect of making it acceptable and common, as we can now see.
I guess I just want the leaders of my coutry to...well.....lead.

dc_dux · 07-11-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't think government should be in the business of science. Government should make laws based on the will of the people, by definition "political", and we should understand that science is best served when there is no government involvement. ..

My concern is not with the attempts to "corrupt" scientists by government or private sources of funds, but when scientists actually corrupt their work for whatever their reasons.

So we dont need the National Science Foundation:

The NSF is the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America’s colleges and universities.

Each year, NSF supports an average of about 200,000 scientists, engineers, educators and students at universities, laboratories and field sites all over the United States and throughout the world. You could say that NSF support goes "to the ends of the earth" to learn more about the planet and its inhabitants, and to produce fundamental discoveries that further the progress of research and lead to products and services that boost the economy and improve general health and well-being.

or National Institutes of Health:

The National Institutes of Health is the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research.

NIH is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation. Its mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.

or the National Institute of Standards and Technology:

NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration. NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.

The critical role of the federal government in medical, scientific and technology R&D does not have to be politicized just because that is the Bush practice.

roachboy · 07-11-2007, 08:07 AM

scientists "should fund their own research"?
how would that work?

what seems at work in the proposition that scientists should "fund their own research" is a kind of naive understanding of the state--you know, the limbaugh position that the state, being a bureaucracy, is irrational, while corporations, being bureaucracies, are rational, so that whenever the state acts its introduces irrationality--the kind of position that really is not about anything at all, except maybe some quaint faith in the pyramid of capitalism

conservativeland has politicised scientific information for many years. here it is again. it is repellent, but it is also part of the modus operandus of the right, so should be no surprise. cowboy george's administration has opposed funding to oraganizations engaged with AIDS in africa that distribute condoms on the grounds that condoms encourage sexual activity. the entire logic behind the filtering of infotainment from the surgeon general lay behind that.

dc_dux · 07-11-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The US Surgeon General is a political position. The office, in my opinion, is to bridge scientific research and public policy.

Not quite...the mission of the US Surgeon General is to provide Americans the best scientific information available (not just the information that supports the President's ideology)on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/

That is NOT a political or policy function.

roachboy · 07-11-2007, 08:21 AM

but there is no operative distinction between information and ideology for american conservatives of the bush administration's ilk.
this form of conservatism has nothing to do with that you can read in "the economist" for example--it is not about providing information as the basis for informed policy choices (or anything else) so much as it is about controlling the parameters of debate itself.
american conservative approaches to information are explicitly authoritarian--they are about disabling debate across different viewpoints.
when you translate this politics of information into policy formation, the results can't help but be irrational.
when you compound that by attempting to filter information flows themselves so that their contents square with your ideology, you multiply the irrationality.
you can see the consequences of this all over the record of the bush administration.

host · 07-11-2007, 08:37 AM

Wouldn't it follow that one who posts an advocacy for the idea that it is "defensible". "agreeable" or "normal" for the political regime in control of the executive branch to limit the release of information related to health and medical treatment to what meets the regime's political and religious ideology and agenda, instead of not interfering with what the Surgeon General that it appointed, in the first place, deems relevant for public distribution..... would be "fair game" here.... for other members posting in wonderment about the motivation for posting such an advocacy.....never accompanied by supporting citations..... Always leaving open, the question; where, on earth, do you come up with these opinions?

Then again...where ....on earth....did America come up with a president....in 2007, no less, who would "Come up with" someone...and nominate him to be Surgeon General of the U.S., who once wrote this:

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politic...osexuality.pdf
<center>PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY
Prepared for the
Committee to Study Homosexuality of The United Methodist Church
by James W. Holsinger Jr., M.D.
Committee Member
January 14, 1991</center>

.....At our Boston meeting, we spent some time discussing
the complementarity of the human sexes. Although one could
gather from the discussion of the consultants in scripture, -
theology, and Christian ethics that there may be some lack
of assurance that the human sexes complement each other, I
believe that it is possible to argue succinctly from an
anatomical (structure) and physiological (function) point of
view that the human sexes are indeed complementary.

It is absolutely clear that anatomically and
physiologically the alimentary and reproductive systems in
humans are separate organ systems; i.e., the human does not
have a cloaca. Likewise it is clear that even primitive
cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, sexual
intercourse, and the birth of children. Indeed our own
children appear to "intuitively" understand these facts. I
think we should note that these simple "scientific" facts
are the same in any culture - patriarchal or matriarchal,
modern or primitive, Jewish or gentile, etc. The anatomic
and physiologic facts of alimentation and reproduction
simply do not change based on any cultural setting. In
fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has
been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our
vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings
either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon
which one interlocks within the other. When the
complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and
diseases may occur as noted above.
Therefore, based on the simplest known anatomy and
physiology, when dealing with the complementarity of the
human sexes, one can simply say, Res ipsa loquitur - the
thing speaks for itself!
January 14, 1991.....

aceventura3 · 07-11-2007, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

So, in essence the Government should forgo funding the advancement of technological growth, and simply allow for private investment to guide economic growth within the technology sector, regardless of the impact stagnation could create within the population. It should also ignore scientific study in favor of a stable status quo, until forced to react to innovation elsewhere in the world.

I think "Government" has a responsibility to govern. People given the responsibility to govern in most cases are not going to be scientist. Scientists should have the responsibility to conduct scientific research. I generally think scientific developments and advances in technology are handled most efficiently in a free market without government. Government, however, is a part of the "free market", and as a consumer of scientific developments and advances in technology government will in-part be a driver of development in those areas. Also, government has a role in governing science based on the will of the people. For example government should regulate bio-hazardous material. However, government, in my opinion, should not make marijuana illegal based on cherry picked science, and then say alcohol is legal based similar science that lead to marijuana being illegal.

Quote:

I suppose that is an option, but fail to see how such a path would lead to prosperity.

If we started a list of scientific developments sponsored by governments and those privately funded, which list would be longer? Which list would prove to have had the greatest impact?

Quote:

The future of most economic growth in the coming decades will require a supportive atmosphere from every direction, unless we simply wish to live off of second hand science.

Many scientists believe for example that the FDA actually hinders the development of new and better drugs. Perhaps their is a fine line where government and the private sector are in balance providing maximum benefit to society. Today, I think government is over-regulating and hindering sceintific development .

Quote:

Misdirection of Data, by any entity is in my opinion a terrible wrong and one of the most counter-productive things we can do. Having it handed down by the federal government has the effect of making it acceptable and common, as we can now see.
I guess I just want the leaders of my coutry to...well.....lead.

I have not stated anything to the contrary. Just like the tobacco industry having an agenda, anti-smoking groups have one too. When I look at scientific research of any type, I look at it with in a skeptical state of mind. Everyone should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Not quite...the mission of the US Surgeon General is to provide Americans the best scientific information available (not just the information that supports the President's ideology)on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/

That is NOT a political or policy function.

First, almost every mission statement I have ever read has been a reflection of an exercise in creative writing. When I am interested in knowing and understanding an organization, the mission statement is the last thing I would look at. I understand your point - but it does not move me. And because mission statements don't move me does not mean I am twisting evidence. I am ignoring the mission statement in this case, and I have given my reason. If you don't like the reason, so be it. But don't pretend I am ignoring the point.

Second, you take the position that the SG does not have a political or policy function but it is a politically appointed position in the government. I gave a reference where a SG was promoting a political agenda in his testimony to Congress. Over the years the SG has been involved in and has been used to promote. various "heath" related campaigns, politically driven. This is not new. How do you reconcile the mission statement and your point of view with reality and history?

Willravel · 07-11-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Carmona would support making tobacco products illegal. I guess he is not above having his own political agenda. Informing people of the negative impact of tobacco is one thing, taking away informed choice is another.l[/url]

The information on tobacco products is 100% clear: they are dangerous and responsible for (statistics suggest as high or higher than 40,000) deaths every year.

Is it a political agenda to prevent deaths from poison? Really? I mean if everyone that smoked was clear that their intention was suicide, that'd be different, but many are smoking because of addiction, or to keep their weight down by staying perpetually sick. I don't want to turn this into a smoking thread, but I'd hardly call the want to stop people from smoking illegal a political agenda.

aceventura3 · 07-11-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

but there is no operative distinction between information and ideology for american conservatives of the bush administration's ilk.
this form of conservatism has nothing to do with that you can read in "the economist" for example--it is not about providing information as the basis for informed policy choices (or anything else) so much as it is about controlling the parameters of debate itself.
american conservative approaches to information are explicitly authoritarian--they are about disabling debate across different viewpoints.
when you translate this politics of information into policy formation, the results can't help but be irrational.
when you compound that by attempting to filter information flows themselves so that their contents square with your ideology, you multiply the irrationality.
you can see the consequences of this all over the record of the bush administration.

In order for the above to be correct, in that conservatives can control the debate and disable the debate across differing viewpoints you have to assume that scientist with views contrary to those of conservatives (assuming conservatives agreed on the scientific issues in question), are gutless and unwilling to take a stand against irrational conservative views. I don't believe that. I also think scientists with opposing views to those of conservatives have many outlets and forums where they can express those views and move the debate in a rational direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The information on tobacco products is 100% clear: they are dangerous and responsible for (statistics suggest as high or higher than 40,000) deaths every year.

Is it a political agenda to prevent deaths from poison? Really? I mean if everyone that smoked was clear that their intention was suicide, that'd be different, but many are smoking because of addiction, or to keep their weight down by staying perpetually sick. I don't want to turn this into a smoking thread, but I'd hardly call the want to stop people from smoking illegal a political agenda.

Smoking is dangerous. Smoking can lead to cancer and other illnesses. On the other hand, if I am aware of the risk, why take the choice away from me? Who gets to decide what is too risky and what is not? Isn't that question answered in the political realm? DC wrote that the SG should not be involved in politics or public policy, so why was he commenting on the legality of smoking?

dc_dux · 07-11-2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Smoking is dangerous. Smoking can lead to cancer and other illnesses. On the other hand, if I am aware of the risk, why take the choice away from me? Who gets to decide what is too risky and what is not? Isn't that question answered in the political realm? DC wrote that the SG should not be involved in politics or public policy, so why was he commenting on the legality of smoking?

You absolutely twisted what I said...I did not say the SG should not be involved in politics or public policy. I said the SG does not have a political or policymaking function. The fact that you dont like mission statements doesnt change the mission of the SG.

The purpose of Congressional hearings is to bring the facts into consideration in the development of legislation.

The Surgeon General has a role to educate the public (including members of Congress) on health and medical issues (sorry, its part of the mission). It is entirely appropriate and not political or policy driven for the SG to testify on medical or health issues.

Rekna · 07-11-2007, 11:01 AM

Ace we cannot make all research private. Doing so makes science driven by profit. If there is no profit then there is no research. We have seen this in the automobile industry over the last 100 years where the technology has changed very little in terms of fuel efficiency. What happens with medical research where a very small % of people are effected, lets say something like Parkinsons. The industry won't research it because they can't make money off it. Again a bad situation. Let's take it a step further and look at military research. Private industries are not allowed to do this research thus the government must do it. Do you really want people whose number one desire is money to drive military research? They will sell the technology to the highest bidder regardless of who it is, if it is someone really bad they will just charge them more. Finally people don't just become good scientists it takes a lot of time and work. We need facilities to train these people. This is why NSF, DARPA, ASC Alliance, ect exist. To put all research into the private industry is ridiculous.

dc_dux · 07-11-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3
If we started a list of scientific developments sponsored by governments and those privately funded, which list would be longer? Which list would prove to have had the greatest impact?

I would say probably the government. In the upcoming FY 08 fiscal year alone, the federal government investment in medical, science and technology R&D is $143 billion....much in the form of grants to universities and the private sector.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/prel08p.htm

This has been the case historically. The US has been the leader in scientific advances since the industrial revolution in part because of the federal commitment to R&D.

aceventura3 · 07-11-2007, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

You absolutely twisted what I said...I did not say the SG should not be involved in politics or public policy. I said the SG does not have a political or policymaking function.

If I twisted what you said, it is because I don't understand the difference.

Quote:

The fact that you dont like mission statements doesnt change the mission of the SG.

I simply stated my point out my view. There is the written mission and there is what is actually being done. The two can be in conflict, therefore I focus on what is being done.

Quote:

The purpose of Congressional hearings is to bring the facts into consideration in the development of legislation.

Facts about smoking are one thing, saying smoking should be made illegal is different.

Quote:

The Surgeon General has a role to educate the public (including members of Congress) on health and medical issues (sorry, its part of the mission). It is entirely appropriate and not political or policy driven for the SG to testify on medical or health issues.

When I suggest the SG is a political position, that is not negative in my point of view. But it is what it is.

If I were President and wanted to make marijuana legal in this country, what do you think I would do?

I would appoint a SG who would support my view and testify to Congress stating facts supporting my view.

What would you do? Isn't that political? Doesn't that make the SG a political tool? Hasn't the SG been a political tool in the past?

I don't expect you or anyone to answer those questions, I have already anticipated what the future responses to my points are going to be. However, I still think it is an interesting topic, and I wouldn't have otherwise given it much thought.

filtherton · 07-11-2007, 11:41 AM

I just want to say that the idea that science should be handled by private industry isn't necessarily very realistic or reasonable. Most science takes place in public research institutions or publicly funded private corporations for a reason: private industry, especially in this day and age where profit now > potential profit later, is only really concerned with science as far as it can make them money. Venture capitalists aren't necessarily that interested in investing in things with no specific potential financial payoff, which is exactly what a lot of scientific research is.

Private industry would never have given us the space program, private industry would never have given us the internet. Ironically, private industry, and society in general, benefits greatly from the public, or public/private funding of scientific endeavors. Public universities do public research, which is then used by private industry to make money.

aceventura3 · 07-11-2007, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I would say probably the government. In the upcoming FY 08 fiscal year alone, the federal government investment in medical, science and technology R&D is $143 billion....much in the form of grants to universities and the private sector.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/prel08p.htm

This has been the case historically. The US has been the leader in scientific advances since the industrial revolution in part because of the federal commitment to R&D.

Yes, our government has invested in medical and technology research. Like I said in the market, our government is a consumer of scientific and technological advances.

Just a few companies I follow:

Genentech $1.5 billion in R&D last year.
Pfizer $7.6 billion.
Merck $4.7 billion.
Amgen $3.6 billion.
Johnson & Johnson $7.6 billion.

Microsoft $6.5 billion.
Intel $5.8 billion.

If we started adding up the sum totals of all companies, the amounts will easily surpass the government's investment. We can also look at countries with highly centralized governments in countries with high levels of restrictions on private investment in R&D, we would find very little inovations coming from those countries.

It is true the companies above have a profit motive, but they also have a motive to bring beneficial products to market. When that motive is missing, sometimes you get research for the sake of research.

I hope our government's investment in research is to bring forth useful information to benefit society, but I don't think that is always the case. I think one problem is that in order to qualify for government research grants in many cases you have to "sell" government bureaucrats and when you do there can be strings attached to the money or the money is given to serve some political purpose. Given limited resources "politics" often can be a factor on who gets funds.

If I were in Congress, I would want the major universities from my state to get their "fair" share of the funds, wouldn't you? Isn't that political?

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Private industry would never have given us the space program,

I bet some would disagree.

Quote:

MOJAVE, CALIFORNIA The first non-governmental rocket ship flew to the edge of space today and was piloted to a safe landing on a desert airport runway here.

Quote:

Microsoft cofounder turned investor and philanthropist, Paul Allen is the behind-the-scenes financial backer of the project, joining forces with aviation designer, Burt Rutan, chief of Scaled Composites.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...wn_040621.html

In my lifetime, I think I will be able to go into space as a tourist.

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In order for the above to be correct, in that conservatives can control the debate and disable the debate across differing viewpoints you have to assume that scientist with views contrary to those of conservatives (assuming conservatives agreed on the scientific issues in question), are gutless and unwilling to take a stand against irrational conservative views. I don't believe that. I also think scientists with opposing views to those of conservatives have many outlets and forums where they can express those views and move the debate in a rational direction.

Actually no such assumption is required, nor is it the case:

Quote:

When a leading psychologist like Harvard's Howard Gardner calls the president's science adviser a "prostitute," it's a safe bet that all is not well in the realm of government science policy. Indeed, in the past month, the United States has been engulfed by a kind of "science war," one pitting much of the nation's scientific community against the current administration. Led by twenty Nobel laureates, the scientists say Bush's government has systematically distorted and undermined scientific information in pursuit of political objectives. Examples include the suppression and censorship of reports on subjects like climate change and mercury pollution, the stacking of scientific advisory panels, and the suspicious removal of scientific information from government Web sites.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sciencewars/

I would say calling the SG a prostitute is pretty gutsy...particularly for a scientist. Scientists worldwide have been critical of this administrations manipulation of science for many years, and have been quite public about it. They have taken a stand on multiple occasions, most recently with a very critical report detailing the manipulation of Data that resulted from scientists doing the work they are required to do. Attempting to move the discussion away from the ethical problems created by what amounts to propaganda through the rape of scientific data, by claiming it happens all the time is disingenuous at best and ignores the implications on our ability to compete worldwide.
Imagine how many young scientists will be affected by an understanding that federal policy has the final say on the work they do. Imagine how many kids will forgo condoms in favor of abstinence...only to succumb to the natural tendency to fornicate, but continuously told that sex is wrong, and God frowns on rubbers. Imagine how we would feel if France develops a cure for cancer from embryonic stem cells, and we could have benefited financially and physically had we ignored the politics in favor of the science. Imagine the brow beating when a central American country develops a fusion reactor and we are forced to buy the technology while they reap the benefits of the research.
By exchanging the truth in science for political objectives we are selling ourselves short, and will soon force the "best of the best" to ply their trade on far away shores. When that happens, our future goes with it.

Willravel · 07-11-2007, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Smoking is dangerous. Smoking can lead to cancer and other illnesses. On the other hand, if I am aware of the risk, why take the choice away from me? Who gets to decide what is too risky and what is not? Isn't that question answered in the political realm? DC wrote that the SG should not be involved in politics or public policy, so why was he commenting on the legality of smoking?

This is a very libertarian view. Would you also like to see heroin and cocaine legalized? Maybe we should disassemble the FDA to allow poisons in all food and drug products, so long as they say that they're poison.

As to policy making, the SG should be able to make recommendations, along with the US Public Health Service, based on scientific evidence, to the house or senate so that they can decide on legislation. He is an educator, and as such must explain how dangers to the public, like smoking, should be treated. Obviously, he cannot simply outlaw smoking.

Don't forget, not all liberals have the same views. DC is brilliant, like many liberal members, but I'm sure very few liberals agree on 100% of the same solutions or perceptions. I happen to think that public health should be an issue of government, and it would work best in congruence with socialized health services.

Do you smoke?

Elphaba · 07-11-2007, 12:32 PM

One of Carmona's key points is that the Surgeon General must be selected from the pool of government physicians. I would extend the post to any physician of significant stature. It's been a long time since we have seen the likes of C. Everett Koop. For those that may not remember, Koop went head to head with the tobacco lobby with the hard scientific facts regarding cigarette smoking. He won with his facts, not any agenda, and he initiated the warnings that are seen on cigarette packs.

Holsinger proves that anyone can hold a medical degree and still be ignorant. I wonder what the AMA thinks of his theory of homosexuality?

Willravel · 07-11-2007, 12:37 PM

Homosexuality would be under the jurisdiction of a Psychologist General or Philosopher General, people who have knowledge of the systems that could explain homosexuality and heterosexuality, not a medical doctor.

aceventura3 · 07-11-2007, 12:48 PM

All I ask is for you, Tecoyah, and others is to consider factors in this area that occurred before Bush. The SG office has been a political tool. Take the "war on drugs" as an example.

Quote:

In 1993, when U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, the nation’s top doc, tried to warn the country of the health hazards posed by The WOD, she was sacked by the President. Today, Barry McCaffrey, a retired U.S. Army general with credentials more aligned with The WOD, is America’s so-called “drug czar.” (I find it interesting that the word “czar” derives from the ancient Roman word “Caesar,” meaning dictatorial ruler. Don’t you?)

http://alternativesmagazine.com/11/cahill1.html

When the SG did not tow the company line the SG gets fired. Political?

Look at the history of making drug illegal in this country and politics are all over it, including supporting views of the SG at various times.

Quote:

Anslinger's first major campaign was to criminalize the drug commonly known at the time as hemp. But Anslinger renamed it "marijuana" to associate it with Mexican laborers who, like the Chinese before them, were unwelcome competitors for scarce jobs in the Depression. Anslinger claimed that marijuana "can arouse in blacks and Hispanics a state of menacing fury or homicidal attack. During this period, addicts have perpetrated some of the most bizarre and fantastic offenses and sex crimes know to police annals."

Anslinger linked marijuana with jazz and persecuted many black musicians, including Thelonious Monk, Dizzy Gillespie and Duke Ellington. Louis Armstrong was also arrested on drug charges, and Anslinger made sure his name was smeared in the press. In Congress, the drug czar testified that "coloreds with big lips lure white women with jazz and marijuana".

Where is any evidence of any SG setting the record straight during any administration since, other than the one who got fired. Political?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08212004.html

Quote:

A report released in March of 1999 by the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine, the end result of two years of government-funded research, concluded that marijuana has beneficial medical effects, ranging from pain reduction, particularly for cancer patients, to nausea reduction and appetite stimulation, in certain circumstances. The report strongly recommended moving marijuana to the status of a schedule II drug, available for prescription by doctors. It also stated that many of the drug's supposed ill affects are false or unsubstantiated by scientific evidence. Among these are:

* the supposed anti-motivational or anti-social affects of the drug;
* that legalizing medical marijuana will increase overall use of the drug;
* that the drug more addictive than other drugs available for prescription;
* that its side affects are more harmful than those of other drugs;
* that marijuana serves as a gateway drug;
* that marijuana causes brain damage;
* that marijuana causes fertility problems; and
* that marijuana shortens life expectancy.

http://alternativesmagazine.com/11/cahill1.html

What SG has championed the cause of presenting objective information on this subject? Why not? Politics?

I say politics, politics, politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

This is a very libertarian view. Would you also like to see heroin and cocaine legalized?

Yes, for adults

Quote:

Maybe we should disassemble the FDA to allow poisons in all food and drug products, so long as they say that they're poison.

I am not an anarchist, there is a role for government in regulating industry.

Quote:

Do you smoke?

No. Never had never will. I have never done illegal drugs either. But I think people should have the choice. Just like I make the choice to ride my motorcycle, which some think is crazy, you should be able to choose your risks.

roachboy · 07-11-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

In order for the above to be correct, in that conservatives can control the debate and disable the debate across differing viewpoints you have to assume that scientist with views contrary to those of conservatives (assuming conservatives agreed on the scientific issues in question), are gutless and unwilling to take a stand against irrational conservative views. I don't believe that. I also think scientists with opposing views to those of conservatives have many outlets and forums where they can express those views and move the debate in a rational direction.

first off, ace, you misunderstood my post.

we are not talking about scientists in general, we are talking about the bush administration's use of the surgeon general's office as an extension of the conservative ideological apparatus (ideological state apparatus is a technical term. look it up.)

this usage of the surgeon general's office is in keeping with the logic of conservative ideology in general. control the parameters of debate.

now by control, what is meant?

well, ace, look at your own posts in relation to anyone else's here. to enter into an actual conversation with you requires that one accept your premises, not because they are legitimate (they aren't) but because you are either unwilling or unable to move beyond them. you cannot even articulate the premises of your positions, must less defend them: all you can do is cling to them.

the matter of control can work in this way--it does not require domination (your side of the political aisle is increasingly a minority position every day, it seems--no matter that the bush people are still in power--they are increasingly talking to themselves, just as you are)--it can require only pigheadedness, obstinance, etc.: turning your inability to articulate the basis for your own position into a quasi-virtue by confronting everyone who interacts with you here with a choice: you either accept what are--to my mind--idiotic logical and political premises in order to debate you on your own terms, or find oneself in yet another tedious tedious tedious session of talking-past-each-other.

so your own technique of non-debate are in a sense a little duplication of what amounts to an attempt to control the terms of debate. of course, this technique does not work here simply because you have no power. no-one does.

in the context of bushworld, however, cowboy george retains formal power and is therefore in a position to directly or indirectly impose conservative ideological filters on information emanating from any number of administrative positions.

this imposing of conservative ideological filters is an aspect of the conservative surrealism.

the bush people continue to believe, it seems, that they "make reality" while the rest of us trot along behind interpreting their brave new world.

of course at this point (7/7) that view is ridiculous, but the administration--rather like yourself in this petri dish we swim in--doesnt seem to get that quite.

if we were talking about "the scientific community" as a whole--which we aren't--then the entire discussion would be otherwise.

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

All I ask is for you, Tecoyah, and others is to consider factors in this area that occurred before Bush. The SG office has been a political tool. Take the "war on drugs" as an example.

It is true that past administrations have played politics with science, no one seriously doubts the reality of this. The issue is the level of manipulation, and the outcry from the science community, as well as the admissions made by the outgoing SG indicating his own distaste for what he was forced to do. I would wager that the office has not been compromised so heavily in the past, but if it was at least they were smart enough to hide it extremely well.
I have no problem taking into account previous manipulations of the Data....but I would also ask that YOU seriously consider the level of abuse that would force the entire scientific community to cry foul.

Willravel · 07-11-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not an anarchist, there is a role for government in regulating industry.

So long as the foods are parked as poison, they are being regulated in a very similar manner to cigarettes. I guess the question would be, what difference do you see between the two?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No. Never had never will. I have never done illegal drugs either. But I think people should have the choice. Just like I make the choice to ride my motorcycle, which some think is crazy, you should be able to choose your risks.

Be glad you avoided heroin.

Do you agree with helmet laws?

filtherton · 07-11-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I bet some would disagree.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...wn_040621.html

In my lifetime, I think I will be able to go into space as a tourist.

Well, their rocket design is based on the v-2, which was developed by the german military during world war 2. Their design also uses a motor designed by an american military defense contractor. It's not like they haven't benefited from technology produced at the behest and funding of government forces. It would be interesting to see how far they would have gotten if some of their most crucial components weren't mostly already designed by someone else. I think that it's still safe to say that private industry would never have given us a space program, at least not without considerable cribbing from government funded projects and/or technology.

I'm not saying that private industry isn't able to create new technology or do research. What i'm saying is that private industry isn't set up to do the types of things that many forms of research and experimentation require. The market is pretty good at finding ways to be successful with technology created elsewhere (like the winners of the x prize have).

Deltona Couple · 07-12-2007, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
This is a very libertarian view. Would you also like to see heroin and cocaine legalized?

Yes, for adults

I am APALLED that ANY human being would even CONSIDER legalizing these drugs. Heroin and cocaine have HORRIBLE side effects, and are adictive drugs. That is just insane!

aceventura3 · 07-12-2007, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

now by control, what is meant?

well, ace, look at your own posts in relation to anyone else's here. to enter into an actual conversation with you requires that one accept your premises, not because they are legitimate (they aren't) but because you are either unwilling or unable to move beyond them. you cannot even articulate the premises of your positions, must less defend them: all you can do is cling to them.

An interesting charge against me. If correct what would happen next? Perhaps I would not be responding to your premise. Perhaps I would not be able to state that my original premise in this thread was that "Government should not be in the business of science" and the the SG is a political position in the government. Perhaps all I have done is cling to the premise I can't articulate, without adding any additional value or support. Yes, a very interesting charge.

Quote:

the matter of control can work in this way--it does not require domination (your side of the political aisle is increasingly a minority position every day, it seems--no matter that the bush people are still in power--they are increasingly talking to themselves, just as you are)--it can require only pigheadedness, obstinance, etc.: turning your inability to articulate the basis for your own position into a quasi-virtue by confronting everyone who interacts with you here with a choice: you either accept what are--to my mind--idiotic logical and political premises in order to debate you on your own terms, or find oneself in yet another tedious tedious tedious session of talking-past-each-other.

Or, my premise could be correct. Or perhaps something is gained by the exchange.

Like I wrote earlier I found value in this thread because it covers an issue I may not have otherwise thought about. Responding to points counter to mine required additional thought on my part and some research on my part. I don't know about you, but I will walk away from this more informed. I walk away a winner.

Quote:

so your own technique of non-debate are in a sense a little duplication of what amounts to an attempt to control the terms of debate.

You lost me here. Through my non-debate technique, I try to control the terms of debate??? Can you give an example of how this works?

I thought that all I was doing was posting my thoughts on a subject and then responding to those responded to my posts.

Quote:

of course, this technique does not work here simply because you have no power. no-one does.

Depends on how you measure power. Some here are much more influential than others. I think that is a form of power. The moderators have power. People who initiate threads have power, they set the general direction on what gets discussed. You have some power, since I am taking the time to read and respond to what you write. I seem to have the power to get people pissed off at my idiotic, unsupportable, etc, etc, comments.

Quote:

in the context of bushworld, however, cowboy george retains formal power

Balanced by the formal powers of others.

Quote:

and is therefore in a position to directly or indirectly impose conservative ideological filters on information emanating from any number of administrative positions.

As others have power to impose other ideological filters on information emanating from any number of media, legislative, judicial, educational, scientific, industrial, financial, etc, etc, etc. outlets.

Quote:

this imposing of conservative ideological filters is an aspect of the conservative surrealism.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Quote:

the bush people continue to believe, it seems, that they "make reality" while the rest of us trot along behind interpreting their brave new world.

Unless your the lead dog on the sled team, the scenery doesn't change.

Quote:

of course at this point (7/7) that view is ridiculous, but the administration--rather like yourself in this petri dish we swim in--doesnt seem to get that quite.

if we were talking about "the scientific community" as a whole--which we aren't--then the entire discussion would be otherwise.

Yes we are talking about the SG, a political cheerleader for the President. Has been in the past and will be in the future. Ooops,

clinging to those idiotic premises again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So long as the foods are parked as poison, they are being regulated in a very similar manner to cigarettes. I guess the question would be, what difference do you see between the two?

I have no problem with tobacco products being taxed and regulated. People who use tobacco products should have certain assurances and guarantees in regard to safety regulations same as food.

Quote:

Do you agree with helmet laws?

I am libertarian when it comes to issues like this. I would wear a helmet regardless of the law, because I think the benefits of wearing a helmet are greater than the costs. I also change the brake fluid in my vehicles every two years if they need it or not, I don't need government to tell me that and not everyone would agree that there is value in doing it, they should not be forced to do it. I just think adults should be able to make their own decisions as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

No, I don't agree with helmet laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

I am APALLED that ANY human being would even CONSIDER legalizing these drugs. Heroin and cocaine have HORRIBLE side effects, and are adictive drugs. That is just insane!

1) these drugs have not always been illegal and people managed o.k.
2) the war on drugs has wasted billions of dollars and ruined the lives of countless people. The money and resource would have been better used on drug prevention education, treatment, regulations and controls.
3) if these drugs were made legal, I doubt usage would go up. It may go down.
4) regulate and tax these drugs. Perhaps we can get users off of the streets and in controlled settings.
5) what was the basis for some of these drugs being made illegal, while others are legal?

If these five things are insane and not worthy of discussion to you, I understand.

pan6467 · 07-12-2007, 08:27 AM

/ warning...... threadjack........

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
I am APALLED that ANY human being would even CONSIDER legalizing these drugs. Heroin and cocaine have HORRIBLE side effects, and are adictive drugs. That is just insane!

1) these drugs have not always been illegal and people managed o.k.
2) the war on drugs has wasted billions of dollars and ruined the lives of countless people. The money and resource would have been better used on drug prevention education, treatment, regulations and controls.
3) if these drugs were made legal, I doubt usage would go up. It may go down.
4) regulate and tax these drugs. Perhaps we can get users off of the streets and in controlled settings.
5) what was the basis for some of these drugs being made illegal, while others are legal?

If these five things are insane and not worthy of discussion to you, I understand.

Heroin and cocaine do have nasty side effects, however, those side effects pale in comparison to ALCOHOL.

Legalizing is almost a necessity, being in the addictions field I can tell you that the field is shrinking, in that tax money for rehabs is drying up, and 99% of addicts can't afford nor have the insurance coverage to pay for it. The field is moving towards corrections, meaning the only help for the addict will soon be prison. This will be a nasty cost to taxpayers because crime rates will increase and taxes spent to house and treat prison inmates will skyrocket.

Unfortunately, once an addict reaches prison, regardless of treatment, the chances for recovery are very slim, far less than if they have treatment before they get that far.

Legalizing and putting some of that tax money into rehab would help millions of lives.

As long as these drugs and others like marijuana are illegal, the more our tax dollars are thrown away in negative ways. That's fact.

One of the few things Ace and I seem to agree on 100%.

/.... end threadjack.....

roachboy · 07-12-2007, 08:33 AM

good christ--on the "war on drugs"---i agree with ace on something.

bewildering.

aceventura3 · 07-12-2007, 08:57 AM

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Unless its a digital clock showing a.m./p.m., or a clock displaying military time. I don't want folks to say how the clock analogy is absurd, I have already been scolded on the use of analogies.

It is up to others to decide which of us represents the broken clock.

07-11-2007, 03:51 AM	#2 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	(tangent) Gotta love that article title. "Bush Nominates Homophobic Surgeon General Who Wants To Cure Gays". If the dude's founding a church that wants to deal directly with homosexual people and 'help' them, the dude's probably not friggin' homophobic. May not even be bigoted in any meaningful sense of the word. Why make these dubious near-unprovable charges? Isn't it enough that he's wrong? (/tangent) But yeah, that nomination seemed like a really bad joke. What's next, Michael Behe as education czar? __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

07-11-2007, 06:15 AM	#5 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Believe it or not, the sciences have always been politicized and censored by those in power. Remember that whole the-earth-is-round controversy? No, it's not right that facts and truth are smothered by theological nonsense, but it isn't something new. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

07-11-2007, 07:11 AM	#7 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	tecoyah: An investigative report by the House Committee on Govt Reform in 2003 found that the Bush administration interfered or suppressed scientific studies and findings by government agencies in numerous areas for political purposes: abstinence only education, agricultural pollution, arctic national wildlife refuge, breast cancer, condoms, drinking water, global warming, HIV/AIDS, lead poisoning, missile defense, oil and gas, stem cell research, wetlands, ...... The report concluded: Federal agencies with global reputations for scientific excellence depend upon the objective input of leading scientists and the impartial analysis of scientific evidence to develop effective policies. The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly suppressed, distorted or obstructed science to suit political and ideological goals. These actions go far beyond the traditional influence that Presidents are permitted to wield at federal agencies and compromise the integrity of scientific policymaking. Report (pdf): http://oversight.house.gov/features/...cience_rep.pdf More reports: http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?ID=239 But I guess (per our other discussion and the "ace' standards), it has no validity until something is found to be illegal or persons are found guilty of something in a court of law. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-11-2007 at 07:23 AM..

07-11-2007, 07:38 AM	#10 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	If the government goes out and gets an Attorney General - a person who is presumed to be a health care professional and a scientist - and only lets them say predetermined things... Well, that's not science at all, it's just propaganda. I wonder how nominees for the position would feel if it were made clear to them that their job description is "propagandist". __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

07-11-2007, 08:07 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	scientists "should fund their own research"? how would that work? what seems at work in the proposition that scientists should "fund their own research" is a kind of naive understanding of the state--you know, the limbaugh position that the state, being a bureaucracy, is irrational, while corporations, being bureaucracies, are rational, so that whenever the state acts its introduces irrationality--the kind of position that really is not about anything at all, except maybe some quaint faith in the pyramid of capitalism conservativeland has politicised scientific information for many years. here it is again. it is repellent, but it is also part of the modus operandus of the right, so should be no surprise. cowboy george's administration has opposed funding to oraganizations engaged with AIDS in africa that distribute condoms on the grounds that condoms encourage sexual activity. the entire logic behind the filtering of infotainment from the surgeon general lay behind that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-11-2007, 07:47 AM	#12 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	So, in essence the Government should forgo funding the advancement of technological growth, and simply allow for private investment to guide economic growth within the technology sector, regardless of the impact stagnation could create within the population. It should also ignore scientific study in favor of a stable status quo, until forced to react to innovation elsewhere in the world. I suppose that is an option, but fail to see how such a path would lead to prosperity. The future of most economic growth in the coming decades will require a supportive atmosphere from every direction, unless we simply wish to live off of second hand science. Misdirection of Data, by any entity is in my opinion a terrible wrong and one of the most counter-productive things we can do. Having it handed down by the federal government has the effect of making it acceptable and common, as we can now see. I guess I just want the leaders of my coutry to...well.....lead.

07-11-2007, 08:21 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	but there is no operative distinction between information and ideology for american conservatives of the bush administration's ilk. this form of conservatism has nothing to do with that you can read in "the economist" for example--it is not about providing information as the basis for informed policy choices (or anything else) so much as it is about controlling the parameters of debate itself. american conservative approaches to information are explicitly authoritarian--they are about disabling debate across different viewpoints. when you translate this politics of information into policy formation, the results can't help but be irrational. when you compound that by attempting to filter information flows themselves so that their contents square with your ideology, you multiply the irrationality. you can see the consequences of this all over the record of the bush administration. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-11-2007, 11:01 AM	#22 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Ace we cannot make all research private. Doing so makes science driven by profit. If there is no profit then there is no research. We have seen this in the automobile industry over the last 100 years where the technology has changed very little in terms of fuel efficiency. What happens with medical research where a very small % of people are effected, lets say something like Parkinsons. The industry won't research it because they can't make money off it. Again a bad situation. Let's take it a step further and look at military research. Private industries are not allowed to do this research thus the government must do it. Do you really want people whose number one desire is money to drive military research? They will sell the technology to the highest bidder regardless of who it is, if it is someone really bad they will just charge them more. Finally people don't just become good scientists it takes a lot of time and work. We need facilities to train these people. This is why NSF, DARPA, ASC Alliance, ect exist. To put all research into the private industry is ridiculous.

07-11-2007, 11:41 AM	#25 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I just want to say that the idea that science should be handled by private industry isn't necessarily very realistic or reasonable. Most science takes place in public research institutions or publicly funded private corporations for a reason: private industry, especially in this day and age where profit now > potential profit later, is only really concerned with science as far as it can make them money. Venture capitalists aren't necessarily that interested in investing in things with no specific potential financial payoff, which is exactly what a lot of scientific research is. Private industry would never have given us the space program, private industry would never have given us the internet. Ironically, private industry, and society in general, benefits greatly from the public, or public/private funding of scientific endeavors. Public universities do public research, which is then used by private industry to make money.

07-11-2007, 12:32 PM	#29 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	One of Carmona's key points is that the Surgeon General must be selected from the pool of government physicians. I would extend the post to any physician of significant stature. It's been a long time since we have seen the likes of C. Everett Koop. For those that may not remember, Koop went head to head with the tobacco lobby with the hard scientific facts regarding cigarette smoking. He won with his facts, not any agenda, and he initiated the warnings that are seen on cigarette packs. Holsinger proves that anyone can hold a medical degree and still be ignorant. I wonder what the AMA thinks of his theory of homosexuality? __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

07-11-2007, 12:37 PM	#30 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Homosexuality would be under the jurisdiction of a Psychologist General or Philosopher General, people who have knowledge of the systems that could explain homosexuality and heterosexuality, not a medical doctor.

07-12-2007, 08:33 AM	#39 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	good christ--on the "war on drugs"---i agree with ace on something. bewildering. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-12-2007, 08:57 AM	#40 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Unless its a digital clock showing a.m./p.m., or a clock displaying military time. I don't want folks to say how the clock analogy is absurd, I have already been scolded on the use of analogies. It is up to others to decide which of us represents the broken clock. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."