![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danaerisModerator
Joanne Silberner, Health-Policy Correspondent, National Public Radio
Speakers
Rita Colwell, Distinguished Professor Emerita, University of Maryland and Former Director, National Science Foundation
John H. Marburger III, Director, United States Office of Science and Technology Policy (Science Advisor to the president)
Congressman Henry Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, House Government Reform Committee; Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Waxman is a democrat who has worked closely with the Union of Concerned Scientists. They presented a report today to congress (if I understood correctly) about trends in science policy in the current administration, which they feel are cause for concern.
According to Waxman, the freedoms of scientists are being severely impinged upon. He listed several examples, which included:
The administration's response to this report asserted that it was spurious, fallacious, and illogical. When Waxman wrote a letter to Marburger asking for corroboration for those accusations, the response was a short paragraph stating, "I've already told you that, so I don't see why I should tell you again."
At the plenary session, Marburger did not respond further to the letter. He did, however, tell portions of his side of the story. Although I tried hard to approach his words with an open mind -- after all, he is a professor of physics, and so I feel a certain kinship to him -- I had difficulty, in the end, accepting his arguments.
Essentially, he explained that the social sciences and medical sciences are "soft" sciences. That is, the research, studies, and experiments which tend to relate to controversial topics do not yield certain results, for the most part. The data must be interpreted, and in that interpretation lies the possibility for differing points of view, sometimes influenced by bias. According to Marburger, many of the differences in opinion Waxman cites are simply cases of different, but equally valid, interpretations of the same data.
As a physicist, I admit to the occasional past snobbery putting down the softer sciences. Nonetheless, just because the most likely explanation for a data set has a twenty or thirty percent chance of being wrong, or because there are alternative explanations which one out of ten scientists suggest, does not mean that it is wrong, or that the alternative explanation is correct. Certainly, alternative explanations are rarely, if ever, equally likely, and uncertainty does not mean that it is a matter of opinion.
Nor does this justify the subversion of committees, positions, and organizations which are intended to be ethically and morally neutral. This is just one of the complaints to which Marburger had no satisfactory answer, or gives no answer at all.
More later... part 2 of 5 will discuss the first workshop I attended yesterday, where researchers discussed preliminary results regarding studies on how journalists frame science news as discoveries or products proceed from first blush to full public awareness through the years. Also, how the general public filter the information they read in science articles.
Joanne Silberner, Health-Policy Correspondent, National Public Radio
Speakers
Rita Colwell, Distinguished Professor Emerita, University of Maryland and Former Director, National Science Foundation
John H. Marburger III, Director, United States Office of Science and Technology Policy (Science Advisor to the president)
Congressman Henry Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, House Government Reform Committee; Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Waxman is a democrat who has worked closely with the Union of Concerned Scientists. They presented a report today to congress (if I understood correctly) about trends in science policy in the current administration, which they feel are cause for concern.
According to Waxman, the freedoms of scientists are being severely impinged upon. He listed several examples, which included:
- Several scientists being interviewed for advisory committees being asked who they voted for, what party they belong to, and/or their stance on abortion; although organizers are supposed to ensure that advisory committees have a balanced selection of members who will represent all sides, no previous administration has done this before.
- One scientist who expressed dissenting views (I believe on stem cell research or abortion rights) was asked to leave their committee
- A number of experts in a field recommended one scientist as the foremost expert in the field. But instead, a medical doctor with extreme religious right leanings was appointed. According to Waxman, this man had "scant qualifications" -- the only claim he has to expertise on birth control is a book he wrote about women's relationship with god when pregnant and considering abortion. If a balanced committee is the goal of the administration, Waxman believes they would have chosen any number of republican experts who are qualified.
- Although the advisory committee on Plan B concluded unanimously that it was safe, the FDA did not approve it for use. He points out that the FDA's role is to approve drugs based on their safety -- not to determine policy based on ethical or moral judgements. If the administration disapproves of the use of Plan B for moral or ethical reasons, they should go through the usual legislative channels.
- There has been cases of scientists being asked to suppress, downplay, or even reinterpret results or data.
The administration's response to this report asserted that it was spurious, fallacious, and illogical. When Waxman wrote a letter to Marburger asking for corroboration for those accusations, the response was a short paragraph stating, "I've already told you that, so I don't see why I should tell you again."
At the plenary session, Marburger did not respond further to the letter. He did, however, tell portions of his side of the story. Although I tried hard to approach his words with an open mind -- after all, he is a professor of physics, and so I feel a certain kinship to him -- I had difficulty, in the end, accepting his arguments.
Essentially, he explained that the social sciences and medical sciences are "soft" sciences. That is, the research, studies, and experiments which tend to relate to controversial topics do not yield certain results, for the most part. The data must be interpreted, and in that interpretation lies the possibility for differing points of view, sometimes influenced by bias. According to Marburger, many of the differences in opinion Waxman cites are simply cases of different, but equally valid, interpretations of the same data.
As a physicist, I admit to the occasional past snobbery putting down the softer sciences. Nonetheless, just because the most likely explanation for a data set has a twenty or thirty percent chance of being wrong, or because there are alternative explanations which one out of ten scientists suggest, does not mean that it is wrong, or that the alternative explanation is correct. Certainly, alternative explanations are rarely, if ever, equally likely, and uncertainty does not mean that it is a matter of opinion.
Nor does this justify the subversion of committees, positions, and organizations which are intended to be ethically and morally neutral. This is just one of the complaints to which Marburger had no satisfactory answer, or gives no answer at all.
More later... part 2 of 5 will discuss the first workshop I attended yesterday, where researchers discussed preliminary results regarding studies on how journalists frame science news as discoveries or products proceed from first blush to full public awareness through the years. Also, how the general public filter the information they read in science articles.
