Rebuke to the dark age
A casualty of Bush's war on science wins the Nobel Prize
Rebuke to the dark age
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
When I read yesterday that a prominent American scientist had been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for her pioneering work in the field of cell biology, I stared at her name for half a minute.
Elizabeth Blackburn...Elizabeth Blackburn...Why does that name ring a bell?
I was about to take the knee-jerk research route - by using what President Bush liked to call "the Google" - when realization dawned. And all I needed to do, to verify my hunch, was dig out a very fat file. The file is entitled "Bush and Science" (an absurd pairing, I know), and deep inside, yup, there she was: Elizabeth Blackburn.
Here's what was omitted from the Nobel Prize news stories. Just for the record:
Turns out, this winner of the Nobel Prize was fired by the Bush administration back in 2004, stripped of her membership on the President's Council of Bioethics. Turns out, Blackburn was one of the early prominent casualties of the Bush team's war on science, its ongoing campaign to distort or suppress scientific evidence for its own ideological ends.
Blackburn repeatedly voiced such complaints during council meetings, as did one of her fellow appointees; the purpose of the council, after all, was to offer the president a variety of views on issues such as stem cell research. But, in February 2004, she was informed by phone that her services on the council were no longer needed. The other complainant, Dr. William May, was also fired. The Bush team offered no reasons for the firings, and said of Blackburn, "The charge that she was let go because of her policy views is utterly without merit." (And if you believe that, I have some Iraq WMDs to show you.)
Blackburn did not go quietly. She soon assailed the Bush administration in an article written for the New England Journal of Medicine: "There is a growing sense that scientific research - which, after all, is defined by the quest for truth - is being manipulated for political ends. There is evidence that such manipulation is being achieved through the stacking of the membership of (White House) advisory bodies, and through the delay and misrepresentation of their reports. As a naturalized citizen of the United States" - she was born in Australia - "I have an immigrant's love for my country. But our country must not fail us. Scientific evidence should and must be protected from the influence of politics."
And in 2007, on ABC Radio, she shared this reminiscence of Bush policymaking: "Science policy (was) being influenced by things that weren't based on scientific evidence...not taking the evidence into account...I think as scientists it sort of sticks in our throats when evidence is being ignored...If you're setting policy, it seems like there is a responsibility to get the evidence as good as you can."
The Bush team's determination to (in Blackburn's words) "mess with the evidence" and "bias the evidence" was standard operating procedure. One of my many favorite stories concerns NASA, where the agency's top scientist on climate change was ordered not to speak publicly about his speciality anymore; he was muzzled by a 24-year-old political appointee whose sole qualification for NASA work was that he had worked as a gopher on the 2004 Bush re-election campaign. This was all documented in a 2008 report by the NASA inspector general, who concluded, more broadly, that Bush's NASA had been presenting information about global warming "in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate-change science."
Meanwhile, Bush was required by law to give Congress an updated assessment of the effects of climate change; that report was required by law to be delivered in 2004. Bush ignored the deadline. Nor did he deliver such a report in 2005 or 2006 or 2007. He finally complied in the spring of 2008, and only because a court ordered him to do so. By then, of course, the integrity of the Environmental Protection Agency had long been compromised. Within the EPA, the Bush team repeatedly suppressed or dismissed valid climate change evidence in favor of industry-sponsored junk science, prompting former EPA chief Christie Todd Whitman (another reality-based casualty) to recall in 2007, "What disturbed me most was the administration's record of taking the most extreme of science - what I call the 'political science' - and giving it the same weight as the real science."
And that's precisely what Elizabeth Blackburn had been warning back in 2004. Her Nobel Prize is not only a celebration of science and what she calls "the quest for truth"; it is also a veritable rebuke to the dark age that is now blessedly dead and gone.
It's about time for there to be an honest discussion not a bs discussion. It's like criminal Limbaugh doing his "Dingy Harry" discussion then immediately decrying the lack of civility in politics.— ModerateMarge- Moderatemarge- Rush Limbaugh? Is this all you got? We've got insurmountable debt, rising unemployment, a declining dollar, and our troops are dying daily in Afghaninstan as the President dithers. And you want to Bi*ch about Rush Limbaugh?— ModerateMike
- ***House Republicans on Wednesday attempted to pass a resolution to remove Rangel from his chairmanship following the reading of a long and stinging list of alleged wrongdoing. The measure stemmed from a major ethics probe into Rangel's alleged failure to pay his taxes and disclose income on multiple properties -- as much as $1.3 million. But House Democrats were quick to strike down the measure to oust Rangel, who represents New York's Harlem district. House Republicans refused to accept defeat of the resolution, and asked for a second recorded vote following the first. The reading of the resolution was interrupted several times, and at one point was challenged by Democrats before being put to a vote.***http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/house_kills_resolution_to_remove_xQ4klGR6FbWtzrQycSLW7O— NEPhilly
- I think he was referring to the fringe religious-right that spout this nonsense. The Republicans do nothing silence these people so you have to assume the hierarchy agree with them (not that all these people are Republicans, just an overwhelming percentage of them).— James TL
- Moderatemarge- You should really thank Rush Limbaugh. The taxes on Rush's salary pays for your usage of government giveaway programs— ModerateMike
- NE--now you've become a bleeding heart for human rights in the Jimmy Carter style? I can't keep track of the zigs and zags of the current republican party talking points. Please try to stay in one place so I can throw a good punch.— liberal
- lib, it's hard to hit a moving target:) More troubling is the democratic party dismissing human rights altogether as a driver of international relations. When did that happen, Jan. 20, 2009?— NEPhilly
- ModMike--during the bush admin we had insurmountable debt, rising unemployment, and troops dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why is this objectionable only on Obama's watch?— liberal
- liberal- Let me know if you need to see the unemployment stats from the Bush Admin. it average around 5.5%..... No question Bush as a spendaholic but the unemployment rate was much better— ModerateMike
- NE--the real wakeup call on human rights was the 1956 Hungarian revolt, when we encouraged the rebels, but then did nothing for them. Everybody realized then that we were not about to start a war with Russia over Hungary, and similarly today everybody knows we are not going to go to war with China over Tibet, and we shouldn't encourage the Tibetans to think so lest the 1956 debacle be repeated. Jimmy Carter tried to revive a pro-active human rights agenda but it really went nowhere because of the realities of the thing. Guaranteeing human rights all over the globe is an impossible task.— liberal
- ModMike--surely you noticed that the hemorrhaging of jobs in the current recession began during the Bush admin--I recall that we lost something like 600,000 jobs per month. This loss has been greatly slowed, but it's just simple math that the unemployment rate will continue to go up as long as jobs are lost. This is what the economists mean by saying the unemployment rate is a "lagging indicator." During Reagan's big recession in 1982, which was started by Carter's pressing the Fed to stop inflation by increasing interest rates, the unemployment rate went up to 11%. At that time, the Reagan administration said, correctly, that this was an inevitable lagging indicator of a major recession; why do the republicans deny this now?— liberal
- lib, I understand we are not going to go to war over human rights, but that shouldn't stop us from supporting human rights around the globe. I'm sure Richard Gere and the hollywood elite are thrilled over this change in tactics.— NEPhilly
- @ModerateMike (swedesboromike) - You're correct. I lost my civility. My comment was un-called for. I apologize. Plus, we found something upon which we both agree. Dan Snyder is a buffoon. I bet we both share an intense dislike for Jerrah Jones. Kumbayah!— Phrossty
- liberal- I see very little indication that our economy is improving. The lagging indicator cliche is very much overused and does not apply in a recession that has gone on as long as this one. It it were improving the unemployment number would stop going up. One of the biggest problems we have is our private sector business is very weary of Obama's policies. Until there is some assurances that Obama's policies of higher taxes and coherced unionization will not get implimented I just don't see much improvement. The declining dollar is also stiffling investment in this country. To be very honest with you the bloom is off the rose as far as Obama goes.— ModerateMike
- Universal Healthcare kills- " Among those diagnosed with prostate cancer, 19 percent die of the disease in America. In Canada, 25 percent of such patients succumb to this disease. And in Great Britain — an Anglophone NATO member and America’s closest ally — prostate cancer kills 57 percent of those who contract it. That is triple the American fatality rate." Deroy Murdock, NRO
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
