25 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Bush Doesn't Do Nuance OR Science, February 9, 2007
This review is from: Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration (Hardcover)
In 2001, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) contacted Shulman to investigate purposeful mishandling of scientific information by the Bush administration. His report, "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making," served as the basis for UCS's assessment that Bush and his group were relegating science to the broom closet whenever it disagreed with the Republican agenda. The statement was eventually signed by over 8,000 reputable US scientists, many of international stature. This book expands upon that report, documenting Bush's systematic and widespread censorship and distortion of science throughout the government.
Key agenda items (among scores of others) for Bush have been squelching stem cell research, denying condom use in AIDS prevention, protecting industry from the EPA, protecting the anti-abortion movement, protecting industry from global warming advocates, and selectively promoting his own religious faith. To accomplish its purposes, the Bush administration has:
*used political litmus tests in selecting administrators for science-based agencies, federal advisory committees, and appointees throughout the government, many subsequent appointees being unqualified.
*routinely tried to shelve, censor, or change scientific gov't reports that conflict with administrative policy.
*allowed private industry to participate in and even dictate outcomes of gov't policy-making.
Shulman provides dozens of examples with careful documentation. In order to achieve these goals without legislation, here are a few of Bush's administrative rule changes for the handling of scientific and technical information by the federal government:
*They limit what questions gov't staff or scientists are allowed to ask.
*They put constraints on methods available for seeking answers.
*They restrict selection of who is allowed to ask questions, seek answers, or give advice in gov't agencies.
*They suppress findings strictly because they conflict with administrative policy.
*They sanction misleading and unjustified claims simply because they bolster claims that are "approved of" by the administration.
*They routinely place ideological, rigid, non-scientist supervisors in charge of gov't scientific research programs.
*They have a chilling effect on the scientific community by exacting retribution, including dismissal, against scientists who ask unapproved questions or produce unapproved results.
The trend to misuse or avoid input from science appears to have started about thirty years ago when political lobbies began to gain a foothold in Washington. Gradually, [lobbyist-lubricated] legislative changes have taken the teeth out of the ability of some of our controlling agencies to even operate. With these safeguards removed, perhaps another administration of either party would have realized their opportunity and taken advantage - however previous administrations have never had as many agenda items so unfriendly to the findings of mainstream science. The Bush administration has developed the politization and debasing of science into an art form.
Science is a special way of communicating - its methods and knowledge base are the same throughout the world, regardless of culture or politics. Even without a common language, if you put scientists together from the same discipline, they will enthusiastically find a way to communicate. Bertrand Russell said, "Almost everything that distinguishes the modern world from earlier centuries is attributable to science." The scientific method with its reliance on evidence and experimentation is not perfect but compared to other methods of gaining knowledge, it is the one most likely to be right.
The politization of science is a severe challenge to government. We can't allow science to rule us directly, but neither can we ignore that we desperately need its best input. A working knowledge of science can at times require graduate level expertise - the learning curve is steep. To expect politicians to make good decisions without high quality unbiased scientific input is simply ridiculous.
"Undermining Science" is a burning indictment of this anti-science administration. I have been reading snippets about the situation in scientific magazines for about five years now, and it is timely that this competent journalist has compiled the data for us in such a clear manner. History tells that this is not a new fight and that science will win out in the long run. This book is a "must read" along with Chris Mooney's excellent "Republican War On Science."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Difference Between Science and Political Policy, March 11, 2007
This review is from: Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration (Hardcover)
The author starts the book with an analysis of the difference between science and political policy. Of course, science creates facts that are proven through testing and then reviewed for accuracy through peer review. And, political policy is what you do after you know what the science of the issue is. You can adjust public policy based on fact, but you cannot change fact to fit with public policy...or can you?
In the book, the author demonstrates the Bush administrations total disdain for science and its results. From global warming to Pacific salmon to coal mining and many others examples, the author shows how this administration makes its public policy first and then figures a way to make the science fit the facts. This may mean firing scientists who will not produce the result you want, or placing mid level political appointees in office to bury reports in desks so they will never see the light of day. The author shows, time and again, how this is done and why.
It appears there are many reasons for Bush's hatred for the scientific community, but the most prevalent seems to be that they might interfere with the profit making potential of big donors. In addition, Bush seems to use his "Christianity" to make policy and discredit the science that doesn't fit neatly into his view of the world.
If this book were written by a hard left writer, it could be dismissed as the ranting of someone with a hatred for Bush. Sadly, the book is heavily endnoted and each item is backed up by numerous sources.
Do not let the name "Science" in the book turn you off. It is extremely well written and is a generally easy read. The science portion is written for anyone to understand and the arguments presented are clear and straightforward. This book is a must read for anyone who cares about what is happening in Washington and should be a primer in what not to do with science in college courses.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
18 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Many examples gathered together, February 10, 2007
This review is from: Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration (Hardcover)
This book covers the many instances in which the current administration has appointed a non-scientist (or scientist with questionable credentials) into a position of power to skew and alter scientific data. The author was approached by the Union of Concerned Scientists to document the problem, and this book is a collection of his data.
At first glimpse, I remember the original articles and complaints. Part of me wished that this problem would correct itself. As the book demonstrates, and as I see in the news, this problem is still with us. One good example is the problem of global warming.
As I read, I thought at times that this seemed one-sided. After looking at the copious amount of citations and documents to back up the claims, I was appalled that this sort of falsification of scientific data, which is relied on by all citizens, would continue without remorse.
I believe that everyone should read this book. We need to be aware of what is happening and speak up to prevent this from damaging our scientific integrity.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
