Distorting science...

[zidane1strife]

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_5

Don't know if this is true, or if it has been posted, but I was reading this on slashdot(where I got a nice recommendation for a book by carl sagan, haunted demon world or something... I'll be reading it soon, heheh..)

So....

What think?

 

[L233]

This isn't exactly news.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/


Those people will do whatever it takes. Cheat, lie, distort, doesn't matter.

Edit:
My personal favourite: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/example_abstinence.htm

 

[RussSchultz]

I'm somewhat amazed that such a partisan report is on a governmental website.

Its obviously biased against the current administration, and uses quite a bit of 'scare' to prove its point.

Example: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/example_hiv_aids.htm

There's not a single documented fact showing the interference, just innuendos and scare quotes showing concerns.

 

[Sxotty]

It might be partisan Russ, but it still is more accurate than less.

 

[ByteMe]

I think the idea that if we don't do any research or help the gays inn any way, they might die soon and end the blight on society.


Not that I agree or disagree with that.

 

[nelg]

It reminds me of the hoopla over The Skeptical Environmentalist and the reactions that it caused.

 

[Ty]

I'm somewhat amazed that such a partisan report is on a governmental website.

Its obviously biased against the current administration, and uses quite a bit of 'scare' to prove its point.

Example: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/example_hiv_aids.htm

There's not a single documented fact showing the interference, just innuendos and scare quotes showing concerns.

Depends on how you qualify 'interference'. IF the scientists were even told that there was going to be political interference, then to me, they're already being interferred with. They'd be worrying about losing their jobs, etc.

 

[RussSchultz]

Certainly. But there's no "here's documented proof it happened". He uses the ever commanding unnamed sources to back his case, along with newspaper articles that use...suprise!...unnamed sources to prove that its happening.

 

[epicstruggle]

Certainly. But there's no "here's documented proof it happened". He uses the ever commanding unnamed sources to back his case, along with newspaper articles that use...suprise!...unnamed sources to prove that its happening.

Thats enough for most democrats nowdays. Facts/proof are irrelevant, hatred of bush is that overwhelming.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

Thats enough for most democrats nowdays. Facts/proof are irrelevant, hatred of bush is that overwhelming.

Wasn't that the same thing people said about Democrats when we were speaking out about the Iraq war and the nagging lack of evidence, or willingness to show that evidence, regarding WMD epicstruggle?

p.s.: Russ, as we've seen in the past, unnamed sources are in many cases quite accurate. Wasn't it unnamed sources from the White House who tipped off Robert Novak regarding Ambassador Wilson's undercover CIA wife? Tsk tsk tsk. You know those unnamed sources.