Scientists don't vote Republican.
Paul Glastris links to an intriguing old Washington Monthly article from back in the early stages of the Bushie War on Science. Not that any of this is terribly surprising, but even with all the outrage fatigue, one can still manage to raise one's eyebrows a bit at revelations like this:
Ergonomics became a politicized issue early in Bush's term when he overturned a Clinton-era rule requiring companies to do more to protect workers from carpal tunnel syndrome and other similar injuries. Late last year, the Department of Health and Human Services rejected, without explanation, three nominees for the Safety and Occupational Health Study Section who had already been approved by Dana Loomis, the group's chair, but who also weren't clearly aligned with the administration's position on ergonomics. Loomis then wrote a letter saying that "The Secretary's office declined to give reasons for its decision, but they seem ominously clear in at least one case: one of the rejected nominees is an expert in ergonomics who has publicly supported a workplace ergonomics standard." Another nominee, who was accepted, said that she had been called by an HHS official who wanted to know her views on ergonomics before allowing her on the panel.
Or this:
Bush has also taken to unprecedented levels the political vetting of nominees for advisory committees. When William Miller, a professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, was considered as a candidate for a panel on the National Institute of Drug Abuse, he was asked his views on abortion, the death penalty, and whether he had voted for Bush. He said no to the last question and never received a call back. "Not only does the Bush administration scorn science; it is subjecting appointments to scientific advisory committees and even study sections to political tests," says Donald Kennedy, editor in chief of Science, the community's flagship publication.
The article notes the eternal truth that the Republicans will continue to push on scientists because scientists -- unlike the industry concerns they often conflict with -- don't do much pushing back; except for the various mainstream environmental groups, scientists and scientific academics are just not organized politically. They just vote the D like the rest of the latte-drinking over-educated class.
It's sad to think that the U.S. government, and expectations of the government, have fallen so far that scientists need to organize themselves into a recognizable interest group to get a place at the policy table. It's depressing that the supposed conservative party -- the party of hierarchy and order and authority -- is so utterly dismissive and manipulative of scientific authority, preferring to pander to self-indulgent mythologies of various types. And it's nice to see first NASA and now the EPA scientific advisory panel pushing back.
Ergonomics became a politicized issue early in Bush's term when he overturned a Clinton-era rule requiring companies to do more to protect workers from carpal tunnel syndrome and other similar injuries. Late last year, the Department of Health and Human Services rejected, without explanation, three nominees for the Safety and Occupational Health Study Section who had already been approved by Dana Loomis, the group's chair, but who also weren't clearly aligned with the administration's position on ergonomics. Loomis then wrote a letter saying that "The Secretary's office declined to give reasons for its decision, but they seem ominously clear in at least one case: one of the rejected nominees is an expert in ergonomics who has publicly supported a workplace ergonomics standard." Another nominee, who was accepted, said that she had been called by an HHS official who wanted to know her views on ergonomics before allowing her on the panel.
Or this:
Bush has also taken to unprecedented levels the political vetting of nominees for advisory committees. When William Miller, a professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, was considered as a candidate for a panel on the National Institute of Drug Abuse, he was asked his views on abortion, the death penalty, and whether he had voted for Bush. He said no to the last question and never received a call back. "Not only does the Bush administration scorn science; it is subjecting appointments to scientific advisory committees and even study sections to political tests," says Donald Kennedy, editor in chief of Science, the community's flagship publication.
The article notes the eternal truth that the Republicans will continue to push on scientists because scientists -- unlike the industry concerns they often conflict with -- don't do much pushing back; except for the various mainstream environmental groups, scientists and scientific academics are just not organized politically. They just vote the D like the rest of the latte-drinking over-educated class.
It's sad to think that the U.S. government, and expectations of the government, have fallen so far that scientists need to organize themselves into a recognizable interest group to get a place at the policy table. It's depressing that the supposed conservative party -- the party of hierarchy and order and authority -- is so utterly dismissive and manipulative of scientific authority, preferring to pander to self-indulgent mythologies of various types. And it's nice to see first NASA and now the EPA scientific advisory panel pushing back.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home