Scientists accuse US of manipulating research

Sparks

Noted on \., on wired.com and in the Guardian, is this statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists, noting that the Bush administration is perverting the scientific process to suit it's own ends.

Now given that Fox News exists, it's not a real surprise that this kind of thing is going on, but there's a bit of a line between tabloid journalism and the scientific process (or at least there's meant to be). It's not so much about pristine science being polluted by the world outside the ivory tower, it's more that if you can't trust the reports of a scientific body, what the hell are you supposed to do to inform yourself about technically complex issues like global warming, genetically modified foodstuffs, human cloning, the space programme, and so on? And more seriously :

As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry.

The reaction of the Bush administration is farcical:

Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement.

Next thing, we'll be seeing Bush agreeing that Creationism is right and the earth is flat....

...whoops. Seems the former is close to happening in Georgia....

:rolleyes:

GuanYin

You have no idea.... I collaborate with an infectious disease researcher in the US who had his lab shut down on a non-compliance order.

I had actually hoped to work for the guy next year so I had to start a whole job search thing up again.

Bush is actually taking the scientific community back to the 60's when Clair Patterson was almost accused of heresy for challenging the lead industry.

DadaKopf

Massive US food corporations have been at the same thing for the last few decades, too.

There's currently a massive, and worrying, dispute between the World Health Organisation and American 'Big Sugar' and related powerful organisations about the WHO's findings in the 'Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases' report.

Having measured an increase in obesity in both the developed (quelle surprise) and, more worryingly, the developing world, the WHO reckons that refined sugar should account for no more than 10% of one's daily food and drink intake - that's 10% above that which is naturally available in unrefined foods. This figure, the WHO says, has been arrived at after years of good scientific research throughout the world.

But the Sugar Association which represents America's 5 largest refiners - 'Big Sugar' - and their mates disagree. They call the UN's report flawed due to 'bad science' and claim that 25% is an acceptable level. How do they know this?

Because the Sugar Association and the US Council for International Business (a powerful corporate lobby group in the US, including America's largest beverage manufacturers) set up the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). This organisation was set up to further corporate ambitions by deliberately misinforming the public and the policy-makers about the effects of certain manufactured products on nutrition. This means that the ILSI is an organisation that's been deliberately set up to make sure no one can interfere with Big Sugar's and its superfriends' fun.

When the UN doesn't play ball, they run to daddy Bush and ask his buddies to withdraw $406 million support to the WHO. MEANIES!

Despite the fact that the world's largest health organisation has settled on a 10% figure, a corporate lobby group, informed by a small and overfunded (and politically biased) front organisation, has accused the UN of 'bad science'.

I don't deny both organisations have their own motives, but seriously, who do you trust?