My latest Science Progress column reacts to the new finalized stem cell guidelines promulgated by the National Institutes of Health this week. First, I give the background on Bush’s awful policy, finally superseded:
The Bush administration’s increasingly unpopular policy, you’ll recall, stated that no stem cell lines derived from blastocysts after the date of the former president’s August 9, 2001 speech on the matter could be used in research receiving federal funds. This raised a host questions, both about ethics and also about coherence—for how could a rule based simply on which day Bush gave his speech have any moral authority?
The policy lacked scientific authority as well, as it was soon revealed that Bush’s promise of “more than sixty genetically diverse” stem cell lines for federally funded research was simply bogus and based on a gross overestimate of the number of available lines. There were really only 21, and “genetically diverse” was a dubious assertion to boot. So the Bush policy wound up constraining research far more than it had at first appeared, and far more than promised. This story of scientific carelessness (or worse) during the president’s nationally televised stem cell address has now been told and retold, and it further undermined the Bush policy: How could a decision made on the basis of incorrect information—and maintained doggedly in the face of contrary information—have any authority at all?
The Obama policy is vastly better than this, on both the ethics and on the promotion of science:
(more…)
I just came across this Salon.com “Dear Wingnut” piece, written by a pseudonymous conservative, who in this installment tries to defend the Republican record on science. It’s pretty audacious stuff, either completely uninformed about the true nature of the critiques of the GOP that I and others have made, or willing to dodge them entirely. And to top it off, the piece goes out with a whack at mainstream climate science.
Wingnuttery indeed.
Here’s a brief example of what we’re dealing with:
(more…)
In the looking glass world of some conservatives and contrarians, the Democratic war on science continues today….just see here for proof.
Not only has our new president reversed Bush’s stem cell policy, and directed his science adviser–who really, really needs to be Senate confirmed–to “develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making” (something I and many others have called for). But in some ways better still, he has given a big speech about embryonic stem cell research that is scientifically accurate, cautious, and does not oversell its potential–while still explaining why we ought to support it.
To wit:
At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson’s, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.
But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research – from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit – and from a government willing to support that work.
These words are right at the outset of the speech. They don’t hurt its rhetorical force one little bit. And they make the speech scientifically sound–much different from the over-promising that some times occurs in the stem cell arena. Heck, Obama even gets in a great explanation of why we need to support basic research, even though it doesn’t always pay off in predictable ways.
Man, what an anti-science president we’ve got here. I can see why the political right is so up in arms.
So, I have to say I find this funny.
On the one hand we have the current, perverse attempt to forecast all the ways in which Democrats and scientists are going to fall into big conflicts soon, now that the Dems have so much power. The idea here is to construct a false equivalence between the egregious abuses of the Bush administration and a few potential conflicts of a very different nature that could maybe happen sometime in the future under this administration.
Meanwhile, we have Obama about to stand up and, you know, liberate embryonic stem cell research. Jeez, Mr. President, didn’t you get the memo? You’re supposed to start throwing your weight around and pissing scientists off! And yet here you are giving them one thing they’ve wanted more than almost anything else for nearly a decade.
Sheesh. Just let us know when you’re ready for the real war on science to start already. There are a lot of journalists out there who have already written their stories and are just waiting to run them.
My latest Science Progress column is up: It makes the case that Stephen Colbert is the heir to Johnny Carson in terms of talk show promotion of science.
It also includes various lame and stupid talking points that I made up and didn’t use on the show, such as the following hypothetical Q&A responses:
Didn’t scientists start the “war” in the first place? Didn’t they commit acts of aggression?
Yes, if you mean by learning things.
Why should I care about science?
Because America is really good at it–much better than France.
Is there really a “war” on science? Where are the bodies?
Well, there haven’t been heads spitted on pikes–but there has been the equivalent of torture. Scientific studies have been confined in dark places for long periods of time. And they’ve been put on the rack and twisted until they can be made to say anything.
Of course, the best hypothetical Colbert question that I heard while preparing for the show came from Eric Roston: “Why do hurricanes hate America?”
You can read the full column here.
Here it is:
.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url(’http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png’) !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}
I’ll have more to say about the whole experience in my next column….thanks to everyone who wrote in with positive words about the segment.
My latest Science Progress column is a response to Seed’s interview with the outgoing science adviser. All I can say is wow, Dr. Marburger, you really don’t get it, and maybe you never will.
Either way, we Bush administration science critics remain entirely unimpressed with your inability to even properly characterize (much less answer) our arguments. And that wind of change that you might feel around you right now–we’re part of it. You’re not.
You can read the full column here.
In my new talk, I strongly emphasize that scientists need to be strategically aware of how they are communicating their knowledge and their results in politically contentious areas. If they’re not careful, not only might they communicate badly–but what they say might actually backfire.
(more…)
Bush’s stem cell veto is going to have big, big political repercussions. The stem cell issue will certainly feature prominently in multiple congressional races this fall. So now the pressing political question becomes, which members of Congress who are up for re-election, and who support Bush on stem cells (and therefore have votes on the record against expanding the policy), are most vulnerable? Hmm, I imagine Santorum is one of them….list your favorite enemies of science below, with an emphasis on folks actually up for reelection this year.
Art Caplan has an extremely powerful piece denouncing Bush’s latest action. And indeed, it’s truly unbelievable: Bush misleads us about the extent to which his stem cell policy will support research, never apologizes, and then blocks the expansion of that policy once it has become entirely clear that it did not succeed on the president’s own terms–i.e., by supporting adequate research. But let Caplan say it:
(more…)
