- Politicization of science
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when
government, business, or interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way the it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. Historically, these groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC-News&id=2445 Evolution or design debate heats up.] ] [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf American Association for the Advancement of Science Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] ] [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom] George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006]
Wheat production and the Soviet Union
Trofim Lysenkodeclared that the geneticsof Mendel’s peas and Morgan’s fruit flies was incorrect and simply a capitalist plot to exploit the peasants and working class. Lysenko believed that only environmental factorsdetermined the performance of plants and that acquired characteristics could be inherited. With his theory that denied the existence of gene-based inheritance, Lysenko promised almost instant improvements in agricultural production. Lysenko’s proletariatorigins helped him to avoid the hatred of the Soviet authorities for the intelligentsia. He first became famous in 1928 by claiming that a series of simple steps, within reach of any farmer, produced markedly improved yields of wheat. All that was necessary was " vernalization" - soaking winter wheatseed in the fall, burying it in sacks under the snow, and planting it in the spring like ordinary spring wheat. This was all a fraud, supported by falsified data and government corruption.Fisher, Ronald [http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/digitised/fisher/229.pdf "What Sort of Man is Lysenko?"] Listener 40, pp. 874–875, 1948]
Tobacco and cancer
By the mid-1950s there was a scientific consensus that smoking promotes lung cancer, but the
tobacco industryfought the findings, both in the public eye and within the scientific community. Tobacco companies funded think tanks and lobbying groups, started health reassurance campaigns, ran advertisements in medical journals, and researched alternate explanations for lung cancer, such as pollution, asbestos and even pet birds. Denying the case against tobacco was "closed," they called for more research as a tactic to delay regulation. [http://www.physorg.com/news91078097.html Tobacco companies obstructed science, history professor says] ]
Modern accusations of politicization
George W. Bush administration
In 2004, The "
Denver Post" reported that that George W. Bush administration"has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee." At least 20 of these former industry advocates helped their agencies write, shape or push for policy shifts that benefit their former industries. "They knew which changes to make because they had pushed for them as industry advocates." [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm When Advocates Become Regulators] Anne C. Mulkern. The Denver Post, May 23 2004.]
Also in 2004, the scientific
advocacygroup Union of Concerned Scientistsissued a report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science" [http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/UCSINTEGRITY.PDF Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science] Union of Concerned Scientists] [http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientists-signon-statement.html Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking] Union of Concerned Scientists] which charged the following:
A growing number of scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists both inside and outside the government allege that the current Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy. In addition, these experts contend that irregularities in the appointment of scientific advisors and advisory panels are threatening to upset the legally mandated balance of these bodies."A petition, signed by more than 9,000 scientists, including 49 Nobel laureates and 63 National Medal of Science recipients, [ [http://go.ucsusa.org/RSI_list/index.php Scientific Integrity Statement Signatories] Union of Concerned Scientists] followed the report. The petition stated:
"When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."
The same year, Francesca Grifo, executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, stated "We have reports that stay in draft form and don't get out to the public. We have reports that are changed. We have reports that are ignored and overwritten." [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5232410 Bush Science Push Fails to Transform Critics] Don Gonyea. National Public Radio, Weekend Edition Sunday, February 26 2006.]
In response to criticisms, President Bush in 2006 unveiled a campaign in his
State of the Union Addressto promote scientific research and education to ensure American competitiveness in the world, vowing to "double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years."
Richard Carmona, the first surgeon general appointed by President George W. Bush, publicly accused the administration in July 2007 of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like embryonic stem cell research. [cite web | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?_r=1 | title=Surgeon General Sees 4-Year Term as Compromised | publisher= New York Times| date= July 11, 2007| accessdate=2007-12-03 | first=Gardiner | last=Harris ] [cite web | url=http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1034212120070710 | title=Former Bush surgeon general says he was muzzled | date= July 10, 2007| accessdate=2007-12-03 | first=Will | last=Dunham | publisher= Reuters]
"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Carmona testified. [ [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-08-05-science-politics_N.htm USA TODAY] ]
Although he did not make personal accusations, the
Washington Postreported on July 29that the official who blocked at least one of Carmona's reports was William R. Steiger. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801420.html?nav=hcmodule Bush Aide Blocked Report] , Christopher Lee and Marc Kaufman, The Washington Post, July 29, 2007.]
Food and Drug Administration
In July 2006 the
Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS) released survey results that demonstrate pervasive political influence of science at the Food and Drug Administration(FDA). [ [http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/fda-scientists-pressured.html FDA Scientists Pressured to Exclude, Alter Findings ] ] Of the 997 FDA scientists who responded to the survey, nearly one fifth (18.4 percent) said that they "have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document." This is the third survey Union of Concerned Scientists has conducted to examine inappropriate interference with science at federal agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services also conducted a survey addressing the same topic which generated similar findings. [ [http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-12-16-fda-survey-usat_x.htm USATODAY.com - Survey: FDA scientists question safety ] ] According to " USA Today", a survey of Food and Drug Administrationscientists by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibilityand the Union of Concerned Scientists found that many scientists have been pressured to approve or reject new drugs despite their scientific findings concerns. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-12-16-fda-survey-usat_x.htm Survey: FDA scientists question safety] ] In July 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists released survey results that they said "demonstrate pervasive political influence of science" at the Food and Drug Administration[http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/fda-scientists-pressured.html FDA Scientists Pressured to Exclude, Alter Findings; Scientists Fear Retaliation for Voicing Safety Concerns] ] [http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Scientific-Integrity-at-Risk-FDA.pdf Examples of abuse, Scientific Integrity at Risk: The Food and Drug Administration] ]
United States Department of the Interior
May 1, 2007, deputy assistant secretary at the United States Department of the Interior Julie MacDonaldresigned after the Interior Department Inspector General, Honorable Earl E. Devaney, reported that MacDonald broke federal rules by giving non-public, internal government documents to oil industry and property rights groups, and manipulated scientific findings to favor Bush policy goals and assist land developers. [cite news | url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-29-interior_N.htm?csp=15 | title = Report: Interior official blasted for twisting environmental data | publisher = USA Today | date = March 30, 2007] On 29 November, 2007, another report by the Devaney found that MacDonald could have also benefitted financially from a decision she was involved with to remove the Sacramento splittailfish from the federal endangered species list. [http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-29-10.asp U.S. Endangered Species Program Burdened by Political Meddling] ]
MacDonald's conduct violated the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) under 5 C.F.R. 9 2635.703 Use of Nonpublic Information and 5 C.F.R. 5 2635.101 Basic Obligation of Public Service, Appearance of Preferential Treatment. [cite news | url = http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/esa/pdfs/DOI-IG-Report_JM.pdf | title = REPORT OF INVESTIGATION: Julie MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife and Parks | publisher = US Department of the Interior | date = March 23, 2007|format=PDF] MacDonald resigned a week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on accusations that she had "violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/interior_official_quits_ahead_of_hearing Embattled Interior official resigns post"] ]
A current example is the
intelligent design movementoriginating with the Discovery Institute, which seeks to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolutionin favor of "a science consonant with Christianand theistic convictions". [The [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/7/71/Wedge_Document.pdf Wedge Document] (PDF file), a 1999 Discovery Institute fundraising pamphlet. Cited in Handley P. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC-News&id=2445 Evolution or design debate heats up.] "The Times of Oman", 7 March 2005.] In contrast to scientific consensus the Discovery Institute portrays evolutionas a "theory in crisis" with scientists criticizing evolution and that "fairness" and "equal time" requires educating students about the controversy. The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that any controversial aspects of evolution are a matter of religion and politics, not science. "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006 ] ["That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom] George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006] The 2005 ruling in the Dover trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where the claims of intelligent design proponents were considered by a United States federal court concluded that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date= December 20 2005, .] A 2006 article in scientific journal Science, said the reason that among the thirty-four developed countries surveyed, the U.S. ranks second from last in the number of adults who accept the theory of evolution: "Theacceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because ofwidespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States." [ Miller, Jon D.; Scott, Eugenie C.; and Okamoto, Shinji. 2006. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765 Public Acceptance of Evolution] Science. 313: 765-766.]
Both sides of the controversy over
global warminghave accused each other of politicizing the science behind climate change.
In 1991, a US corporate coalition including the
National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Associationand Edison Electrical Institutecreated a public relationsorganization called the " Information Council on the Environment" (ICE). ICE launched a $500,000 advertising campaign to, in ICE's own words, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)." Critics of industry groups have charged that the claims about a global warming controversy are part of a deliberate effort to reduce the impact any international treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, might have on their business interests. [http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/spring98/sp98a_fe.htm The PR Plot to Overheat the Earth] ]
In June 2005, John Vidal, environment editor of "
The Guardian", asserted the existence of US State Departmentpapers showing that the Bush administration thanked Exxonexecutives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the US stance on Kyoto. Input from the industry advocacy group Global Climate Coalitionwas also a factor. [ [http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html Revealed: how oil giant influenced Bush, White House sought advice from Exxon on Kyoto stance] John Vidal. The Guardian, June 8 2005] In 2006, "The Guardian" reported that according data found in official Exxon documents, 124 organizations have taken money from ExxonMobil or worked closely with who that have, and that "These organizations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled 'junk science'. The findings they welcome are labelled 'sound science'." [ [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 The Denial Industry] The Guardian, September 19, 2006] [http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/selective_use_climate_update.pdf The Political and Selective Use of Data: Cherry-Picking Climate Information in the White House] ] The "selective use of data", cherry picking, is identified as a notable form of scientific abuse by the Pacific Institute, an organization created to provide independent research and policy analysis on issues at the intersection of development, environment, and security. [http://integrityofscience.org Integrity of Science initiative of the Pacific Institute] ]
In December 2007, the
Christian Science Monitorreported that at least since 2003, and especially after hurricane Katrina, the George W. Bush administration has broadly attempted to control which climate scientists could speak with reporters, as well as edited scientists' congressional testimony on climate science and key legal opinions [http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1212/p03s03-uspo.html Study Finds White House Manipulation on Climate Science] ] Those who have studied organizations set up to delay action and manufacture uncertainty about well established scientific consensus have [http://www.houstonpress.com/2002-08-15/news/global-warming-is-good-for-you/ Global Warming is Good for You] Dylan Otto Krider, "Houston Press, 2002"] divided their tactics into three basic categories: first deny there is a problem, second, make the case that it's not a problem and may actually be beneficial, and failing that to admit it's a problem but insist there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Climate change has also long been a political issue for the Democratic party politician
Al Gore. Some political opponents have accused him of using the issue as a means to advance his political ambitions. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/gores_grave_new_world.html Gore's Grave New World] ] He has not run for any political office since 2000. In 2007 Gore won an Academy Award (for " An Inconvenient Truth") and a Nobel Peace Prizefor his work.
In August 2003,
United States, Democratic Congressman Henry A. Waxmanand the staff of the Government Reform Committee released a report concluding that the administration of George W. Bush had politicized science and sex education. The report accuses the administration of modifying performance measures for abstinence-based programs to make them look more effective. The report also found that the Bush administration had appointed Dr. Joseph McIlhaney, a prominent advocate of abstinence-only program, to the Advisory Committee to the director of the Center for Disease Control. According to the report, information about comprehensive sex education was removed from the CDC's website. Other issues considered for removal included agricultural pollution, the Arctic National Wildlife Refugeand breast cancer; the report found that a National Cancer Institutewebsite has been changed to reflect the administration view that there may be a risk of breast cancer associated with abortions. [http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf Politics and Science] ] [http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/ Politics & Science: Investigating the Bush Administration's Promotion of Ideology Over Science] ] The website was updated after protests and now holds that no such risk has been found in recent, well-designed studies. [The full report in PDF format is available from http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf ]
US House of Representatives Science Oversight and Investigation subcommittee
In January 2007, the
House Committee on Science and Technologyannounced the formation of a new subcommittee, the Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, which handles investigative and oversight activities on matters covering the committee's entire jurisdiction. ["The Subcommittee handles investigative and oversight activities on matters covering the entire jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology. This Subcommittee is new for the 110th Congress." [http://science.house.gov/subcommittee/default.htm Subcommittees, Committee on Science and Technology] ] The subcommittee has authority to look into a whole range of important issues, particularly those concerning manipulation of scientific data at Federal agencies. In an interview, subcommitte chairman Rep. Brad Miller pledged to "look into...scientific integrity issues under the Bush Administration. There have been lots of reports in the press of manipulating science to support policy, rigging advisory panels, and suppressing research by federal employees or with federal dollars. I've written about that here before, and you interviewed me a year ago about the manipulation of science. In addition to the published reports, the committee staff has been collecting accounts, some confidential, of interference by political appointees. I hope that more folks will come forward now that Democrats are in the majority and we show we're really going to pursue the issue. [ [http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/24/11426/3083 Democrats Form New Science Subcommittee] Brad Miller interview. Daily Kos, January 24, 2007.]
Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns
Framing (communication theory)
Kansas evolution hearings
The Republican War on Science
Spin (public relations)
Scientists and Engineers for America
William R. Steiger
* [http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/ Politics & Science: Investigating the Bush Administration's Promotion of Ideology Over Science] . Website by US Congressman Henry Waxman and the Government Reform Committee.
* [http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Scientific-Integrity-at-Risk-FDA.pdf Examples of abuse, Scientific Integrity at Risk: The Food and Drug Administration] The Union of Concerned Scientists (PDF file)
* [http://www.ucsusa.org/ Union of Concerned Scientists website]
* [http://integrityofscience.org Integrity of Science initiative of the Pacific Institute]
* [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-08-05-science-politics_N.htm Science vs. politics gets down and dirty] - USA TODAY
:* [http://www.waronscience.com/home.php "The Republican War on Science"]
Chris Mooney(2005). :* [http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html "Scientific Integrity in Policy Making: Investigation of the Bush administration's abuse of science"] Union of Concerned Scientists(2004). :* [http://www.cspo.org/Political_Science.html Political Science] The New York Times(2005).:* [http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-10-08.html Politicized Science: Science as Public Relations] Skeptic Magazine(2004).:* [http://www.unc.edu/courses/2005spring/epid/278/001/Krider_Politicized%20Science_Spring%202004.htm Politicized Science] Dissent Magazine(2004)
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.