Bad tech advice for the president

TalkBack 9 of 19:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

True, but...

---the job of a president is akin to that of a ceo; he should
surround himself with people smarter than himself (on their
respective individual issues and skillsets) and manage their tasks
and make decisions on their work and recommendations.---

Very well said, and I agree 100%. The issue I'd bring up with our
current President, is that he tends to ignore advice that doesn't
fit his pre-conceived notions, and goes so far as to fire or smear
anyone who gives him advice that doesn't go along with what
has already been decided. This is dangerous--if you are
surrounded by yes men, how can you fairly evaluate policy?

One example the original poster gave was Colin Powell, who has
been marginalized in the administration for not toeing the line.
Another good example is the science advice he receives. Here's
an article for you, hope that Scientific American isn't seen as a
left wing rag:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0001E02A-A14A
-1084-983483414B7F0000&sc=I100322

April 26, 2004




Bush-League Lysenkoism




The White House bends science to its will




By The Editors




Starting in the 1930s, the Soviets spurned genetics in favor of
Lysenkoism, a fraudulent theory of heredity inspired by
Communist ideology. Doing so crippled agriculture in the
U.S.S.R. for decades. You would think that bad precedent would
have taught President George W. Bush something. But perhaps
he is no better at history than at science.

In February his White House received failing marks in a
statement signed by 62 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel
laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and
advisers to the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. It begins,
"Successful application of science has played a large part in the
policies that have made the United States of America the world's
most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous
and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is
rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should
always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective
to avoid perilous consequences.... The administration of George
W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle."

Doubters of that judgment should read the report from the
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that accompanies the
statement, "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making"
(available at www.ucsusa.org). Among the affronts that it details:
The administration misrepresented the findings of the National
Academy of Sciences and other experts on climate change. It
meddled with the discussion of climate change in an
Environmental Protection Agency report until the EPA eliminated
that section. It suppressed another EPA study that showed that
the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act would do less than
current law to reduce air pollution and mercury contamination of
fish. It even dropped independent scientists from advisory
committees on lead poisoning and drug abuse in favor of ones
with ties to industry.

Let us offer more examples of our own. The Department of
Health and Human Services deleted information from its Web
sites that runs contrary to the president's preference for
"abstinence only" sex education programs. The Office of Foreign
Assets Control made it much more difficult for anyone from
"hostile nations" to be published in the U.S., so some scientific
journals will no longer consider submissions from them. The
Office of Management and Budget has proposed overhauling
peer review for funding of science that bears on environmental
and health regulations--in effect, industry scientists would get
to approve what research is conducted by the EPA.

None of those criticisms fazes the president, though. Less than
two weeks after the UCS statement was released, Bush
unceremoniously replaced two advocates of human embryonic
stem cell research on his advisory Council on Bioethics with
individuals more likely to give him a hallelujah chorus of
opposition to it.

Blind loyalists to the president will dismiss the UCS report
because that organization often tilts left--never mind that some
of those signatories are conservatives. They may brush off this
magazine's reproofs the same way, as well as the regular salvos
launched by California Representative Henry A. Waxman of the
House Government Reform Committee [see Insights] and maybe
even Arizona Senator John McCain's scrutiny for the Committee
on Commerce, Science and Transportation. But it is increasingly
impossible to ignore that this White House disdains research
that inconveniences it.

Posted by: tic swayback   Posted on: 07/09/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now