Spinning Science

[Dardedar]

Spinning Science
By William Fisher
t r u t h o u t | Columnist

Tuesday 21 November 2006

More than a decade ago, former president George H.W. Bush stated that "now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research ... government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance."

The problem is he never told his son.

We know from a multi-year series of findings that the administration of President George W. Bush has systematically manipulated science to comply with ideology - and satisfy the political agenda of his right-wing base.

The latest evidence of this scientific sleight-of-hand is contained in a report by the Government Accountability Office - the Congressionally-mandated oversight agency. GAO found that most abstinence-until-marriage education programs - which receive about $158 million annually from the Department of Health and Human Services - are not reviewed for scientific accuracy before they are granted funding.

"Efforts by HHS and states to assess the scientific accuracy of materials used in abstinence-until-marriage education programs have been limited," the GAO report states.

"This is because HHS's Administration for Children and Families (ACF) - which awards grants to two programs that account for the largest portion of federal spending on abstinence-until-marriage education - does not review its grantees' education materials for scientific accuracy and does not require grantees of either program to review their own materials for scientific accuracy."

GAO auditors contacted 10 states that receive funding from ACF for their abstinence-until-marriage programs. It found that only half reviewed the programs for scientifically accurate data on contraception, sexually transmitted infections and other information.

The report also found that most state and federal efforts to assess the effectiveness of abstinence-until-marriage education programs "do not meet the minimum scientific standards" that experts say are necessary to be scientifically valid.

The GAO report should not surprise us. President Bush has consistently supported the view that sex education should teach "abstinence only," and not include information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.

And there are many other examples:

here

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

W has fantasized being a dictator since he was a small boy - it's just recently (the last several years) he's had the power to act out his fantasies. Science is always the first to go when dictators act out their fantasies.

[Hogeye]

The article seems to be more about ignoring science than spinning science. Government research funding is the main means of spinning science. Innovative or non-politically correct ideas rarely get funded. Generally, a panel of establishment scientists gives each proposal a score, and even one low score is enough to prevent funding. In medicine, for example, osteopathy or chiropractice gets little money. Even Linus Pauling (Nobel Peace Prize winner) had trouble getting funding for his vitamin C research. I won't recap the anti-cannabis fiascos already posted elsewhere.

But here's one I don't think's been mentioned: The GAO has determined that the DARE program is ineffective - "graduates" of DARE were more likely to use drugs than those who didn't take the course! But the program is so popular among law enforcement people that little things like proven ineffectiveness don't effect funding.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Facts have all kinds of problems competing with emotions. W doesn't ignore science, he has the research "reported" to say what he wants it to say. Spinning doesn't come close to describing how bad that is. Money has always gone to the research the panel members are most familiar with and comfortable with. Nothing new, and nothing particularly governmental, about that. There's only so much money to go around - getting cut practically by the day - so the only way to get it to your project is to get supporters of your project are on the panel. Some of the ways of doing that are more ethical - and legal - than others, of course.

[Dardedar]

chiropractice gets little money.

DAR
Good.

Even Linus Pauling (Nobel Peace Prize winner) had trouble getting funding for his vitamin C research.

DAR
Double good. Pauling's vitamin C claims are considered quackery and with good reason. He is a textbook example of how a person can be an expert and very accomplished in one field but quite gullible and out to lunch in another (this is not to rule out the occasional person who manages to be out to lunch in a very broad range of fields).

D.

[Hogeye]

Money has always gone to the research the panel members are most familiar with and comfortable with. Nothing new, and nothing particularly governmental, about that.

There are (at least) two differences: the "monopoly" issue and the risk-aversiveness issue. When government accounts for a huge share of research monies, then its biases can bias overall research. You, as an ardent opponent of "mega-corporations" should appreciate this. And government funding decisions tend to be more risk averse than private ones. Private research is more likely to fund long-shots, realizing that long-shots sometimes pan out. If they don't, that's just the nature of R&D. Government decision-makers know that, when such research doesn't pan out, it will be construed politically as a waste of money, hard to justify to their constituents, etc. So they tend to shy away from such, and glom on to the "safe", politically correct theories and hypos for funding.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I don't know where you've been for the last 2 decades Hogeye, but major corporations have shut down their R&D (doesn't look good on quarterly reports) and are depending on gov't funded research - which is partially biased by how much campaign fundings is given to which party/candidate - and who was therefore appointed to "direct" which agency, among many not particularly helpful or ethical constraints.

As to gov't funding being "risk aversive" - who do think did the research on the hybrid engine? It was the Clinton-Gore endrun when they couldn't get increased CAFE standards through Congress. The U.S. gov't did the research and testing on the hybrid with the agreement that auto manufacturers would then build it (a promise American corps "forgot" as soon as W got in). That's why you started seeing them in 2000 - the first of the commercial ones hitting the showroom floor.

[Hogeye]

I don't know where you've been for the last 2 decades Hogeye, but major corporations have shut down their R&D (doesn't look good on quarterly reports) and are depending on gov't funded research - which is partially biased by how much campaign fundings is given to which party/candidate...

Yes. I agree 100%. That is an excellent example of how, when the State takes over some function, the ability of voluntary society to do that function atrophies. Why spend a bunch of money on research if you can get it "for free" (at the expense of hapless taxpayers and inflation victims) from the government? When it becomes cheaper to buy power and direct research by bribery and lobbying the by doing your own research, it is not surprising that firms do so. By supporting govt research, you are supporting this process. The separation of science and State, ending govt intervention in research, would force firms to do it themselves, at their own expense, rather than shoving the cost onto others via the State. (Have you noticed, Barbara, that we pretty much agree on the facts, but have vastly different interpretations of them.)

So the auto firms managed to get the govt to fund hybrid research for them? That's a good example of shoving the costs on the general public. I question the wisdom of expecting big existing auto companies to undermine their own products. Radical change usually comes from upstarts - the Apples and Altairs and not the IBMs. The transporation breakthrough will probably come from startups like Tesla Motors, in Silicon Valley and not Detroit.