WSJ: Scientists Take To the Streets Against Bush

[question everything]

Groups Accuse Administration of Twisting Facts on Warming and Stem-Cell Research

By ANTONIO REGALADO
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 15, 2004; Page A4

In a big shift for the normally docile scientific community, some leading researchers are mounting a political campaign to unseat President Bush this fall, accusing the administration of twisting scientific facts to fit its policies on issues such as global warming, sex education and stem-cell research.

(snip)


Meanwhile, a group of senior scientific leaders is close to launching "Scientists and Engineers for Kerry." Among the group's goals: galvanize voters in battleground states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania that are home to large hospitals, research campuses and medical institutions that employ tens of thousands of potential voters. The coalition is being organized by a group including Harold Varmus, president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York; Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists; and Gilbert Omenn, the president-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. All three are informal policy advisers to the Kerry campaign and veterans of past Democratic administrations. Dr. Varmus worked in the Clinton administration as the head of NIH.

(snip)

The Kerry campaign has tried melding the scientists' message into other campaign points about high-tech jobs and economic growth. The presumed Democratic nominee recently inserted into his stump speech a wish to be the president "remembered for restoring our commitment to science."

(snip)

The frustration of many in the scientific mainstream has been palpable since early in Mr. Bush's term, when battle lines were drawn over issues like standards for arsenic in drinking water, climate change and stem cells. The depth of anger is frequently palpable at scientific meetings on controversial topics, where it is common to hear Mr. Bush's policies openly and bitterly criticized. Beyond those topics, the increased political activity among scientists comes against a backdrop of worry that the U.S. is losing its technological pre-eminence to foreign competitors, as well as anxiety over flat budget projections for science agencies. According to analyses by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit membership group, funding increases cited by the White House mostly have gone toward testing weapons systems and other industrial work. That has left fundamental research in physics and other areas facing a budget crunch.

(snip)

At the least, science issues are being trumpeted by some groups that see the presidential campaign as an opportunity to press for policy changes. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the nation's most important advocate of stem-cell research, is spending as much as $1 million to support grass-roots movements in swing states and elsewhere to pressure the administration to change its policy, JDRF President and Chief Executive Peter Van Etten says. As a nonprofit, the foundation is barred from political activity and "absolutely does not have position on who should be president," Mr. Van Etten says. "We don't want our people running off to Kerry fund-raisers."

(snip

Write to Antonio Regalado at [e-mail]

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108984212977664018,00.html

(edit: missed the W in the WSJ on the title...)

[Auntie Bush]

1. Another stupid scientific blunder...teaching creationism

in schools instead of evolution. What stupid fools!

[wtmusic]

2. Hey, nobody knows for sure where people come from

j/k, I *hate* that argument! :D

[greymattermom]

3. scientists

A major issue is the NIH budget, which is set to decrease next year. Typically medical school faculty have to raise 50% or more of their salaries from NIH grants. The spending on Iraq is going to hurt American science for a long time. I'm a medical school faculty member who has had grant funding for 30 years, with 2 kids in college, and I just got a 25% pay cut because I only have 1 NIH grant now. I'm not likely to mentor young women to go into a field where you have to be in the top 10% just to keep your job.

[question everything]

4. And "conflict of interest"

A recent report suggested that a high percentage - do not remember the number - of scientific papers did not reveal ties with pharmaceutical companies who had a vested interest in the results of the research.

Perhaps if more NIH funds were available, fewer scientists would have to go looking for sugar daddy to sponsor for their research.

[newyawker99]

5. Hi greymattermom!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[lil-petunia]

6. DUers,

write Antonio in nice, polite terms and decry what the admin is doing to our country, our scientific standing, and our reputation in the world.

Remind him that Stalin tried to change science in political ways.