We welcome your comments.  Email us your comments.
return to statement...

Defend Science Statement Sources

•   to attempt to reshape government scientific panels to obtain policy recommendations on issues ranging from health and medicine, to education, to the environment, - Numerous examples too many and too egregious to list - in UCS Report [Section II: Undermining the Integrity of Science Advisory Councils - Political Litmus Tests] and Esther Kaplan [Councils of Quacks section,  page 108 - in Weird Science chapter]

•    Scientific American published an editorial under the title: "Bush-League Lysenkoism:  The White House Seeks to Bend Science To Its Will." Scientific American, In Focus, April 26, 2004

•    HIV-prevention studies have come under attack for even attempting to study prevalent sexual practices. Endless Inquisitions section, Weird Science chapter, in Esther Kaplan
•    Funds have been cut and researchers have faced intimidation and harassment from fundamentalists inside and outside of government who insist that scientific study of HIV/AIDS begin and end with the demand for "abstinence-only" programs.  Endless Inquisitions section, Weird Science chapter, in Esther Kaplan
•    Research into human sexuality in general has been suppressed Weird Science chapter in Esther Kaplan; and “Scientific McCarthyism”: AIDS, Sex Scientists on Federal List Fear Their Research Is In Jeopardy, San Francisco Chronicle October 28, 2003; NIH Questions Researchers on AIDS Grants, Associated Press, October 28, 2003.

•    faulty studies and outright disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms and other birth control methods have been promoted and disseminated by the Administration.  - A fact sheet on the CDC website that included information on proper condom use, the effectiveness of different types of condoms, and studies showing that condom education does not promote sexual activity was replaced in October 2002 with a document that emphasizes condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.- From UCS referencing A. Clymer, “U.S. Revises Sex Information, and a Fight Goes On,” New York Times, December 27, 2002. A comparison of the two versions of the CDC website about condoms can be seen online - see UCS report for addresses. There are various other examples and references - for example, Study Faults Abstinence Courses by Brian Wingfield, NY Times, December 2, 2004

•    The Department of Health and Human Services is known to have deleted from its web site scientific health information which conflicted with the Administration's "abstinence-only" approach to sex education... UCS section [Scientific Knowledge on Abstinence-only Education Distorted] and Kaplan [Disappearance of Disagreeable Facts section in Weird Science chapter]. Example above, and In a case the New York Times labeled  “an egregious distortion of the evidence,” information suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer was posted on the National Cancer Institute website despite objections from Centers for Disease Control (CDC) staff, who noted that substantial scientific study has long refuted the connection. After public outcry on the matter, the information has since been revised and no longer implies a connection. “Abortion and Breast Cancer,” New York Times, January 6, 2003. For a detailed account of this issue, see K. Malek, “The abortion-breast cancer link: how politics trumped science and informed consent,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Summer 2003

•    In studies by government scientists on global warming and its potentially devastating consequences for the planet and humanity, titles of reports have been changed and whole sections taken out by high political officials. Extensive exposure in NY Times, October 19, 2004, Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue by Andrew Revkin.

•    There are repeated efforts by government officials to over-rule scientists on such things as which plant and animal species to include on the "Endangered Species" list, which natural habitats are in critical need of preservation, what air and water quality standards need to be, and so on... Significant and numerous examples in UCS Report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking. The case of Coho salmon is especially egregious. “The four cases regarding application of the Endangered Species Act demonstrate a disturbing pattern of administration officials suppressing or distorting the best available science when it conflicts with their policy objectives.” And also the UCS report on lead poisoning and mercury emissions.

•    In a practice many have denounced as "Scientific McCarthyism," To our knowledge, first used by Waxman in letter to Tommy Thompson. “Scientific McCarthyism”: AIDS, Sex Scientists on Federal List Fear Their Research Is In Jeopardy, San Francisco Chronicle October 28, 2003.
•    scientists who are candidates for scientific advisory boards and panels have been asked whom they voted for - During her confirmation process for the Council of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Sterk reports she was subjected to repeated questioning about her political views in three separate calls from a White House staff member. Among the questions she was asked, and refused to answer, was whether she had voted for President Bush. Despite her refusal [to answer], however, Dr. Sterk states that the White House staffer continued trying to elicit an answer about her vote in the presidential election for roughly 15 minutes.  “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking, UCS Report” which contains many more such examples.

•    or whether they support particular policies of the Administration, - Dr. Sterk was asked many other overtly political questions that she refused to answer, such as whether she supported “faith-based” drug treatment programs. “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking, UCS Report”,  which contain many more such examples

•    and some have been denied appointments because of their political views.- Torsten Wiesel, a Nobel laureate in physiology and medicine, was rejected by Tommy Thompson's office as a candidate for the advisory board of the Fogarty Center at the NIH, the director of the center was told by an official from the Department of Health and Human Services that Wiesel had "signed too many full-page letters in The New York Times critical of President Bush." From Nature, July 15, 2004, p. 281 quoted in Dishonesty in Science, New York Review of Books, By Richard C. Lewontin. “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking”, the UCS Report contains many more such examples including the case of Dr. Sharon Smith, an expert on Arctic marine ecology at the University of Miami and a nominee to the Arctic Research Commission whose mandate covered the debate on oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), was directly asked, “Do you support the President?” On answering that she was not a fan of Bush’s economic and foreign policies, “that was the end of the interview. I [Dr. Smith] was removed from consideration immediately.” [NY Times, October 19, 2004, Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue by Andrew Revkin]

•    Official government-run bookstores at the Grand Canyon have carried books promoting as fact the literalist Biblical notion that the Grand Canyon was formed only a few thousand years ago by "Noah's Flood," Weird Science, Page 90, Esther Kaplan, full story mainly drawn from interviews with Jeff Ruch, director, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

•    The President claims: "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth," New York Times, October 22, 2000, THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: MATTERS OF FAITH; Bush Uses Religion as Personal and Political Guide, By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

We welcome your comments.  Email us your comments.
return to statement...

You can sign the Statement on this website. Just click here to add your name to the growing list.


Join in the battle to defend science!

Scientists and Members of the Scientific Community:

• Sign and Circulate This Statement.
• Help Raise Funds to Have it Printed in Newspapers Across the Country, and Internationally.
• Get This Statement Adopted by Scientific, Educational and Other Associations and Institutions.

Members of the General Public:

Reprint and Circulate This Statement, Help Spread the Word, Contribute Your Ideas About How to Wage This Crucial Battle & Join With People in the Scientific Community and Others to Wage This Battle.
• Help raise funds to print the Statement in as many newspapers and journals as possible, in the U.S. and internationally.


The StatementSignatoriesSign the StatementDonateAbout usLinks
© Defend Science Project 2005. All rights reserved.