Feb 04 2006
Prev/Next Posts: « “Black Holes” trailer || The outrage grows »
Outrage at attacks on NASA science
Note (added February 6): due to this being linked from a lot of major sites (digg.com and slashdot, for example), the server was getting hammered. You can comment on this entry, but it won’t get displayed right away; I have to add them by hand to prevent server overload. The permalink to this page is a static HTML page instead of a dynamic PHP page, so that server load is reduced that way too. Sorry about this; I’ll put everything back to normal when things calm down!
I’m slow to anger, I really am. I deal with infuriating attacks on science by the anti-science shysters all the time, so I have learned not to let my anger get the better of me.
But I have never, ever been as angry scientifically as I am right now. Never.
In this blog I have complained about the anti-intellectual, anti-science machinations of the current government (for example here and here). I have also said that creationists would be attacking astronomy soon.
Man, I hate being right sometimes.
I’m so livid I can hardly type straight about this. Because of that, and because of the seriousness of this issue, I am writing a disclaimer:
I want to be clear that what you are about to read is my personal opinion and not necessarily anyone else’s. I have based this blog entry on what I have read in newspapers and blogs. I have also had many discussions with other scientists about related issues, and so I have been able to form what I think is an informed and reasonable position on this.
You may have read the New York Times article on January 29 about a NASA scientist who was gagged by the government about his reports on global warming (the link requires a free registration). Dr. Jim Hansen, a top NASA scientist, had interview requests about his work with global warming denied by a NASA public affairs officer by the name of George Deutsch. While Deutsch works for NASA, he is actually a presidential appointee who worked for President Bush and Vice President Cheney during the 2004 elections.
Got this so far? Deutsch had this position as NASA public relations specialist given to him by the current administration, and according to Dr. Hansen he used it to suppress information about global warming. This issue was important enough to NASA officials that Mike Griffin, NASA’s Administrator, sent an email on Friday, Feb. 3 to all NASA employees (and which is now posted on the NASA website) saying that "It is not the job of public-affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA’s technical staff."
I agree wholeheartedly, of course, and I also want to make clear that I think that scientific suppression is not representative of the demeanor in general at NASA, nor of NASA’s Public Affairs Office as a whole. In fact, the NYT article makes this clear, stating "[Hansen] and intermediaries in the agency’s 350-member public-affairs staff said the warnings [of "dire consequences" if they talked about global warming] came from White House appointees in NASA headquarters" (emphasis mine; in the article Dr. Hansen clearly also strongly disagrees with policy statements by the other PAO political appointee, Dean Acosta).
But now let’s get to the next part. In the February 4 issue of the NYT, the plot thickens (all the following quotations are from that article). Other scientists have come forward and talked about how political appointees have tried to suppress or alter other information from NASA in order to make it conform to the President’s party line.
Here’s the money quote, folks, the part that has me so outraged. Sitting down? You’ll need to be.
In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.
Maybe, just maybe, you’re thinking, Deutsch is just being pedantic over what to call the Big Bang, since it is in fact a scientific theory. Maybe you’re thinking this has nothing at all to do with a perversion of science.
But you’d be wrong.
The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the “war room” of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen’s public statements.
In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word “theory” needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”
Emphasis, once again, is mine.
Now gee, why would that statement make me angry? Why would a NASA politically-appointed employee suppressing science, gagging a scientist, and trying to insert a narrow religious (and demonstrably wrong– the Big Bang is most certainly not a matter of "opinion" ) viewpoint into government educational activities get me so angry I could hop in a plane right now, fly to DC, and testify before Congress about these insane actions against the core of what we know to be true?
Yet, incredibly, it gets worse:
[Deutsch’s email] continued: “This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.”
"Factual information"? A "religious issue"?
Did you just hear a funny noise? It was my irony gland exploding.
According to reports from many NASA scientists in the NYT article quoted above, political appointees have suppressed real science, and now one wants to teach children specific religious beliefs on the taxpayers’ dime — then tries to claim the higher moral ground. And then, after all that, he admits to the issue being religious! As Judge Jones, the federal judge who ruled over the Intelligent Design case in Dover, Pennsylvania last year, said, ID is "a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." If we take Deutsch at his word, then what he said himself condemns his own actions: NASA is not in the business of teaching religion. They should be teaching science, and the Big Bang is definitely science.
This may simply be an instance of one naive person (Deutsch is green, after all, fresh out of college and appointed to a relatively powerful position) grossly overreaching his authority, but I wonder. Reading the NYT articles, and hearing about this happening at more agencies across the government, it seems to fit a pattern of dedicated suppression of science. And this is coming from someone at NASA.
NASA sent 12 men to the Moon. NASA has a probe which is right now taking mind-blowing images of Saturn and its moons. In less than fifteen years, NASA may well put people back on the Moon. To most people, NASA means advancement, means innovation. To many, NASA is science.
So I’ll be very, very clear here. What we’re talking about here is scientific McCarthyism; the pressuring of scientists to toe the party line. Anyone in the government who does this to someone else — especially to a scientist, whose goal is open discourse and the uncovering of truth — should be removed from their position, immediately.
NASA can ill-afford this at any time, let alone right now (the NASA budget comes out on Monday, and the Inspector General of NASA — another presidential appointee — is under serious fire as well). Therefore NASA administrators should seize this moment. Griffin’s email was a good start, but it’s only a start. An attack on science as described in the New York Times articles is an insult not just to scientists at NASA, but to all government employees, and to all Americans.
We must not tolerate this.
I have more to say, plenty more. I will be very eager to see what happens in the next few days.
But man, I hate being right sometimes.
This is scary. I can’t find another word for this. In fact, my mind is in such a “What the heck is going on with them?” state that I can’t even think straight. What does religion have to do with the NASA? So the Big Bang is a theory. But there happens to be a bunch of facts in the hands of the Big Bang. And ID is not a search for truth. It’s RELIGION. Something that bases itself on FAITH. Not facts. And their “FACTS” are shaky. So shaky they’re not facts at all. They are matters of faith.
Separation of the church and state, please. There’s a big need for it. NOW.
I think Douglas Adams said it best:
“Funny,” he intoned funereally, “how just when you think life can’t possibly get any worse it suddenly does.”
Poor Superman
So, the Bush administration is going to try and be pro-science. Here we go. In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school…
[…] Update: Phil Plait has extensive comments at Bad Astronomy Blog. […]
Didn’t Stephen Hawking claim that the Big Bang [theory] leaves room for God (if you want it to)? Whereas a steady state universe doesn’t, because it is infinite (has no cause).
As an atheist, I can’t understand why you wouldn’t want to believe the first of the two options. Oh, wait, that’s right — God created a universe that just appears to be 15 billion years old at nightfall on October 22, 4004 BC!
OOPS
That second par should have begun
“As an atheist, i can’t understand why a Christian wouldn’t want to believe…”
I’m livid as well, particularly after having to hear Bush’s potentially dangerous call to outlaw “animal-human hybrids” and “buying, selling, or patenting human embryos,” which if taken as worded, would be like putting a ten ton concrete block in front of a bullet train for biology in America.
I’m currently waiting to hear back from graduate schools, but if this keeps up, I may be forced to do work elsewhere.
I started reading this blog with your first post about creationists coming after astronomy next. I’ve liked it a lot, and in fact just tonight was pointing Saturn out to my wife after learning from this site where to find it.
But I have never been more impressed than with this post.
Fight the good fight, Phil. There are legions of us out here in the heartland cheering you on.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations; for Nature can not be fooled.” Richard Feynman in the Report on the Challanger Disaster.
It seems parts of NASA have failed to learn this lesson.
I am in a state of disbelief. This is an insult to any logical thinking person.
Phil, Nature have an article online which may not require a subscription.
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060130/full/060130-11.html
“Has NASA’s press office gone too far?”
This is what I’ve been saying for far too long. Those of us that accept science for what it is, have always been on the retreat. Even when we’re not retreating, we’re trying to empathize with the other party (understand their religious beliefs making it difficult for them to think critically). We feel sorry for them, thus we’re always on the defense. It’s enough, and BA, among a few others, are spearheading the “resistance”. We must not let this opportunity to attack pass us. The very nature of Science is at a crossroads today, and no empathy, or understanding will cure it of the intelligent design disease. This isn’t a future generational issue, the time is here and now to strike back and end this absurdity.
For BA, the whole NASA debaucle finally struck close to home, and the very nerve that runs through his system. Those of us in the molecular biology, microbiology, and biological research fields have been living with this nightmare since the severe stem cell limitations imposed by Bush and Co. It won’t stop with Astronomy either, soon, geology, chemistry, even paleoanthropology will suffer the same fate. As for those who think we’re overreacting, their turn will come as well. Sure, you feel safe, and sometimes even laugh when it’s your neighbor’s lawn that the Great Dane across the street craps on; but suddenly, it’ll be your foot stepping in it, and it’s not quite as funny anymore. I’m not one for military analogies (espcially during the current administration’s military record), but we’ve gotta blitz the hell out of these IDers, and make sure they are ALL voted out of office.
Imagine if the young buck hadn’t tipped his hand so clumsily…..he just might have pulled it off.
Holy. Crap.
That’s inexcusable, even if Deutsch is a kid.
Not just a 24 year-old, a 24 year old journalism major! There is no indication this guy knows anything whatsoever regarding science (all indications are to the contrary). What the heck is a 24 year-old journalism major doing “correcting” the science of ANY scientist, not to mention the senior NASA climatologist? What is he doing telling every scientist in the agency what the status of the Big Bang is? He is most likely ordering around people twice his age who have forgotten more about the Big Bang or climatology then he will ever know in his entire life. A 24 year-old ordering around senior scientists is one thing, but a 24 year-old with little or no scientific knowledge or background telling some of the best scientists in a given field that the scientific statements they are making on their own area of expertise are wrong is simply absurd.
[…] gland exploding. Bad Astronomy Blog » Blog Archive » Outrage at attacks on NASA science check out the BlogBites Search Engine swicki ateurekster.com […]
I agree with you Phil. What I do not understand is how can the Bush administration say they support space exploration yet make attemps to supress data that supports the current accepted theories of the Big Bang and Global Warming? It shows just how uneducated this Deutsch guy is because there is factual data that supports both the Big Bang and Global Warming. Why are these theories so hard to accept?
I will end by saying this to those pro ID folks: I find it more of a miracle of God that the Universe started from a Big Bang and that we evolved from a single cell organism! Of course, I am Buddhist so I accept the Universe as it is and simply study its beauty.
I’ll support you Phil. Keep us informed!
Wow, just wow. No words.
“But man, I hate being right sometimes. ”
Reminds me of Jeff Goldblum’s line in ‘Jurassic Park’.
Oh boy, now they’re saying the Big Band is “just a theory”? I don’t even think people that say that even know the meaning of the word.
Insane. Just plain insane.
This is my nightmare coming true. Astronomy was the first science I really fell in love with, and reading this got me crying.
Glenn Miller was not available for comment, but the Count Basie Observatory sent out a note. It was a B-flat.
Swingingly,
Jeff
These are the same people who want to spearhead a manned mission to Mars as a publicity stunt.
NASA has a long record of being used for propaganda purposes, with actual scientific research just barely squeezing in around the edges of sexy, eye-catching projects like Apollo. This is the same old, same old - it’s startling only because of the characteristic Bush administration straightforwardness in manipulating spin.
NASA *might* put someone back on the Moon in fifteen years, but I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to how much science that guy’d be doing.
It might be more impressive if this guy had spent four years studying the world’s religions instead of journalism. Maybe then he’d come up with a new, insightful argument instead of just repeating what’s been heard before. He seems more like a puppet than anything else, and I’m afraid I have little respect for someone who believes something for the wrong reasons or no reasons at all. I would respect someone who had done some research and critical thinking and decided that ID was correct; I would have little respect for someone who sides with science but can’t tell me the nature of a scientific theory or give a general outline of the history of at least one scientific field (I am most familiar with physics).
What is someone with a degree in journalism doing telling everyone what is and is not science? And how is he to know what is and what isn’t a “religious issue”?
It’s amazing to see such abuse of a position..
To me, it raises the question of why was he appointed? If you take the view that it was because of his religious beliefs, then doesn’t that throw doubt on all Bush appointees?
I would love to see the day when presidential candidates flaunt their non-religious credentials, to avoid any accusations of bias..
Here in OZ, we are not close to this situation - yet.
But America’s president affects the whole world, (way too many examples to mention) so the choice of an IDiot has ramifications for us all.
The scary part, for me, is how this kind of fact manipulation happens behind closed doors - and the perpetrators really believe they are doing the right thing.
It’s insane.
I want to reiterate the support you have Phil, for fighting this..
Eventually we will all have to play a part in countering this situation and others like it; because they will not stop.
As a journalism graduate of Texas A&M, all I can say is that Deutsch’s existence goes a long way toward proving all those Aggie jokes are indeed true. If he’s the kind of graduate they were turning out, no wonder the university disbanded the department…
First they came after biology and I didn’t care because I wasn’t a biologist. Then they came after astronomy and I didn’t care because I wasn’t an astronomer… …and then they came after math…
MONEY
Phil you are god;ike in you excellance.
I want to see a pay pal button pronto and I want to see you send thousands and thousands of dollars to the rat ass congressman who will vote the way you want
I give thousands a year to sierra and nrdc and cbd and onrdc and whoever I don;t give a fussc if you can stoip one fuch from cutting down one tree or stop somepone frp, talomg a cra[ om tje fprest/
go political or we all die.
outlaw “animal-human hybrids†and “buying, selling, or patenting human embryos,â€
manimals!
“Hang tough NASA, it’ll end someday.”
You know, reading that closely, it doesn’t sound as hopeful as it does at first glance . . .
Un freaking believable.
I’m passing this around to the other members of our department. Those poor biologists have been putting up with this crap for quite a while now, so I suppose it is our turn at the knife. A March on Washington might not be out of place.
Phil: I’m with you all the way. See you AAAS: you can bet that this will be a topic there.
Good God. What is going on down there? Someone needs to clean house.
What is incredible to me is that all of the people around me feel the same way: that stuff like this is incredible in it’s audacity and embarassing in it’s lack of scientific foundation. Bush is an abysmal failure when it comes to appointing people with *any* meaningful credentials.
So I just hav eto keep wondering - who the *hell* can support Bush and his cronies after reading something like this…who is voting for these fools?
Ouch. My head literally hurts after reading this one! Bad Astronomy, indeed…
Phil, please keep us advised on this one; if we can help in any way to spread the word, let us know!
Tom
“shocking”
The Man: “You have let your own ugly agenda and opinion upset a whole organisation, who’s smarter and more experienced than you.”
[Junior (IQ=his age), stares at the floor, shuffles his feet]
The Man: “Further more, you are bringing the future of a whole country in jeopardy by sidelining the scientific community”
[The Man pouting his lips]
The Man: “You are fired!”
Deutsch is a “political commissar.” Political Commissars were first used by Lenin after the Russian revolution. He assigned political appointees to Red Army units to ensure their loyalty to the party and to ensure they did not do anything “counter-revolutionary.”
The consequences of failing to heed Bush’s commissars is not as dire as in the old Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the effect on both individuals and the independence of science is dire enough.
Mike Barron wrote: “Bush is an abysmal failure when it comes to appointing people with *any* meaningful credentials.”
Mike Griffin seems to be a noteworthy exception to that (I’m certainly not trying to defend the president, don’t get me wrong).
That aside, I’m so disgusted by this that I’m at a loss for words. How does nonsense like this happen in the 21st century?!
As if this news weren’t already appalling enough, I can just imagine the tinfoil crowd now, citing this as an example of NASA’s willingness to withhold information from the public…
[…] Want to be outraged? Read Phil Plait’s latest blog entry. […]
This doen’t surprise me at all. The religious right want to supress all science to their will. And will stop at nothing to get there. They attack the studies by focusing on the variables. If that doesn’t work they attack the individual. They do not believe in objective truth only their subjective truth. The only way to get rid of them is to kick Bush out and then fire ALL of his appointees. Please read the book ‘The Republican War on Science’ by Chris Mooney. He pretty much outlines whats going on with this subject.
Hopefully the repercussions of dumbing down and dichotomizing America for votes won’t reach too far and wide.
I wasn’t going to comment on this post, there is not much I can add, but I clicked by accident in the link “I’m an adorable little mouse” and guess what, it has a big advertisement asking money for Bush. Talk about irony…
Welcome to the Dark Ages – in 2006!
So can George Deutsch be fired? How? A letter writing campaign?
Like former FEMA Director Michael Brown, George Deutsch is yet another incompetent crony.
Then there’s the part of the New York Times story where Mr. Deutsch rejects an NPR request to interview Dr. Hansen. Deutsch is quoted by public affairs officer Leslie McCarthy as calling N.P.R. “the most liberal media outlet in the country.” (His 100% negative definition of “liberal” is of course in line with the political outlook of the current administration.) As an earlier poster noted a latter day American style “political commissar” indeed! Mr. Deutsch is also quoted as saying his job is “to make the president look good.” He evidentially has no desire to bring an appreciation of NASA’s scientific discoveries to the general public.
I don’t know about the rest of the country, but we have 5 Christian channels on our cable system here….W. TEXAS I some times watch for the comic relief. Last year, there was some item that came out that said to the effect that we were not in the center of the universe. TBN, the primary offender, trotted out their “scientist” to explain that this was all wrong, and assured the viewer that we were in fact in the center of the universe.
Now, I’m certian that 99.999% of their viewers never even heard of Astronomy, but it was useful to TBN for the purpose propaganda. They all have the theme of “Chirstians Under Attack”, send money to help fight this evil. It’s really very scarey….
I leave you with John Stuart Mill:
“Although it is true that not all conservatives are stupid, it is also true that most stupid people are conservative.”
The Big Bang is a theory and I could mount a reasoned scientifically based argument for an alternative theory but that is not the point. Mr. Deutsch’s wilfull injection of religious dogma into scientific discourse, his censoring of those whose theories and projections don’t adhere to the Bush party line, and his complete lack of any scientific education himself reminds one of Lysenkoism under Stalin. If this clown show weren’t so dangerous, it would qualify as high farce. By the way, since when does a hack public affairs officer get to quash the First Amendment?
Was this lunatic, Deutsch-bag, present and involved in the most recent explosion of the Space Shuttle in 03? Did he have authority to censor information that came from NASA at that time ?
Did he also have authority to censor the information coming out of NASA regarding the loose tiles/flying foam from the most recent Space Shuttle mission ?
First, it was biology. Now, it’s astronomy. Before too long, it will be neuroscience. In a letter to Nature, Kenneth Kosik points out that the ID debacle was “a relatively small-stakes theological issue compared with the potential eruption in neuroscience over the material nature of the mind.”
Mind you, that’s the same thing I’ve been saying since I read I, Robot in ninth grade — incidentally the same year in which I took a biology class where the textbook had a special sticker on the inside front cover. The Alabama State Board of Education wanted to assure us all that evolution was only a theory, and a “controversial theory” at that, proposed by “some scientists”. Not all, just a few. . . .
However, it could always be worse. If the Pythagoreans were in charge, they’d skin us all alive for knowing that the square root of two is an irrational number. And let’s not even imagine what they’d do when they learned we know of the dodecahedron! The scenarios start with being trampled under horses’ hooves and scraped apart with oyster shells, and they get worse from there.
Now that’s irrational.
Hi Phil -
Science is obviously under attack here. Global warming, forest management, climatology, oil depletion, alternative energy, all of the issues have been spun and re-spun by this pathetic excuse for a government.
When agenda trumps truth, we have the makings of a revolution. Unfortunately, those most allied with science are often the most “meek” as well.
It is time that the gloves came off.
Each of us has the internet to use to find our senators and congressmen’s email addresses, and those of the rest of our government. A concerted, sustained, passionate and emotionally charged response to these people is one of the few actions available to us under the constitution…to demand redress of our grievances.
I sincerely implore each of you to write a letter to your senators and congressmen and anyone else involved in this government, and express the level of vehemence noted in these comments, without being threatening or rude. Write passionately about your desire for an America that respects truth above politics, science over dogma, and intelligence and knowledge over religious indoctrination.
This is OUR country. It was won on the blood of our forebears, and we should NOT give it up to these extremist ideologues, lest we besmirch the legacy and sacrifice those forebears left in our hands.
Stop what you’re doing right now and vent your emotions where they can actually do some good. Let the voice of reason, common sense, and the American ideal of truth ring out long and loud, until the voices of narrowmindedness and ignorance are drowned out, removed from positions of power, and are relegated finally to the annals of failed thinking and politically expedient decision-making. Write it all down and send it. Don’t think about it, just do it.
Finally, and MOST importantly…vote in November, 2006…and again in 2008.
Kyle
Well, then there’s only one thing left to do. Sue this man, and the Bush administration for attempting to push a religious agenda not only on government, but as a lie to quash scientific progress. Unless people make an effort to attack back at these cretons, they will stop it nothing until the world is seen again as a flat earth middle age idiot’s fascist theocracy.
Nothing on CNN about it.
Nothing on ABC.
Nothing on MSNBC
Nothing on Yahoo News
Nothing on USA Today
Had to search for it at the NYTimes.
You can shout as loud as you want on this blog. No one will hear you.
The major Newsservices do not even report about this.
Science has no lobby in the US.
Too sad. In Germany I read about it already last week. They continued reporting about it the whole week. Even though we had other major problems to deal with.
I like this little gem:
“The only response came from Donald Tighe of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. “Science is respected and protected and highly valued by the administration,” he said.”
I support the notion that something should be done to stop this, but as a non-scientist i’m not too sure what i can do to “get the message” out.
Okay, whomever anyone knows in the lead scientific/academic communities, INFORM THEM OF THIS ARTICLE. People must be informed about this enough to become news on the major networks. This absurdity MUST, I repeat, MUST be confronted head on. The severity of it cannot be watered down by any means whatsoever.
Like I said in a previous comment, science needs to start getting political, otherwise, it’s going to get seriously undermined in the public sphere and if nobody is fighting in it’s corner, then this is going to start cropping up time and again, until the quality of the science being done is along the lines of what was done in the 13th century.
In this particular case, the obviousness demonstrates how rapidly true conspiricies “fall apart”.
I AM wondering how the adminstration is going to “spin” this?
I had blogged this earlier, but less well than you.
Notice the pattern?
You get outgraged about one item. (big bang)
I another, (nuclear treaties)
her, something else (torture, Katrina, eavedropping, salmon, abortion).
It’s distract and conquor, get us on all fronts at once.
Make liberal mided people fight for every right and reasonable expectation we ever had, and keep us distracted from the bigger picture by our individual outrage.
Come to the streets in Washingtone next time, okay?
The press that tells you the protestors are anarchists and Cindy Sheehan wannabes,
are lying with the mouth of George Deutch.
I am absolutely appalled(sic) at what this Bush (the Younger) appointee has tried to get away with.
Here’s hoping that someone can find a way to make Judge Jone’s ruling apply in this case otherwise we’ll have to go through the entire thing again.
Although if it does maybe it’ll result in something that can be applied nationally, with luck such a ruling would not hurt NASA.
Finally, full praise to Dr Griffin for his memo, these ‘people’ have no right to tell scientists what they can or cannot say.
What comes in my mind.
Is it really that bad beeing called a liberal in the US?
Shouldent it be something positive to be liberal?
Doesn’t that mean to have an open mind for other ideas, to think out of the box of dogma?
I get the impression that either you are conservative (which is ultra right-wing from a german viewpoint) or you are democrat (which is right-wing from a german viewpoint). Everything a little bit to the left of this is considered as liberal or communist, if there is made a difference between those two.
Is this just my impression or (political) reality?
Folks,
The world if full of ignorant people shouting what they believe. They embarass themselves, and others who have given them positions of responsibility.
Here are a few comments:
The big bang is a theory. As a scientific theory, scientists give it much respect. I am a scientist by training, and have been teaching astronomy and physics for over 30 years. I have been teaching the big bang for many years as scientist’s theory of how things were created. Can we prove it? Not entirely. Certainly, we cannot recreate it. We have a great deal of evidence to support it. Yet, if you look back at what scientists thought they knew a hundred years ago, they had no such idea. If you think about what scientist will believe in a hundred years in the future, they will probably think that what we believe today is substantially mistaken, just as we do about what scientists believed a hundred years ago. So, what is the point? Knowledge is a continually unfolding vision of the truth. At any time, we just have a small piece of the truth. Hopefully our beliefs are getting closer to the real truth, but occasionally, human knowledge drifts away from it. The important thing is not to have too much pride in what we know. It is a small part of reality or truth.
On a separate subject. According ‘to Judge Jones, the federal judge who ruled over the Intelligent Design case in Dover, Pennsylvania last year, said, ID is “a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” ‘ - Nothing could be further than the truth. Intelligent design has nothing to do with any particular religion. It is a belief that the incredible diversity and complexity of the universe is the result of the creator’s purpose. A purpose to create a place for humanity. Can it be proved? No, not entirely. Is it the truth? I don’t think that anyone really knows. It is a hypothesis, and some day may be accepted as a theory. In the meanwhile, we should keep our minds open, study, learn, contend with each other in love, and not anger. Hopefully, our efforts will lead us ever closer to the TRUTH.
Thanks,
Jim
[…] Read Phil Plaits: Outrage at attacks on NASA science […]
Absolutely, without a doubt, the most arrogant, yet most idiotic administration ever. If I ever met that obnoxious little brat Deutch….
DrJPHauck I don’t know where you get the idea that ID isn’t religious from but the way the movement exists is such that it is just creationalism by another name (but with a lot of effort gone into making it look like it isn’t which may be why you were able to be confused by them).
Not to mention that the idea of an intelligent designer is an inherantly religious concept.
I thought free speech and the ability to do just that was important to journalist? Isn’t that what drives thier business…difference of opinion? I don’t know, I’m just a plumber who loves to go outside and lookup. You can’t help but wonder…twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are…
If intelligent design really meant what it said, none of us would probably have a problem with it…
But it does not and anyone that says different is someone who has not common sense at all and I wouldn’t listen to that person or persons.
It does say though that it’s ok not to think, it’s ok not to use common sense and it’s ok to believe that the Universe that we inhabit doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t matter.
It’s a kind of “Cafeteria Philosophy” or better a “Cafeteria Science or Religion” that says we can choose to use all the wonderful technology without realizing that the scientific principles behind it are real.
Ok. Get this. God is Superior. even over NASA. Ever heard of the phrase “Supreme Being”? Jeeesh, for science type guy your pretty naive.
[…] Not content with attacking evolution, creationists are now turning their attention to astronomy. Bad Astronomy has an excellent write-up, but I’ll paraphrase here. […]
I wish I was surprised by this.
The Big Bang is a theory. regardless of your narrowminded anti-intellectualism. You fear religion may somehow worm its way into the issue, which clouds your judgement. Leaving religion aside, the Big Bang is still a theory. There are evidences suggesting its occurrence, but no facts, no photos, no ego-serving blogs of witnesses to read.
Get off your high horse, anti-religious tirades and simply look at the issue.
You can’t because of cant. And you accuse the President and his administration of McCarthyism?
Poor unscientific fellow.
Miguel Rodriguez
We should not rest until it becomes common to hear on the six o’clock news, “In another example of abuse of science by the Bush Administration…”
I don’t mean I wish for there to be more examples, only that the “mainstream media” report the numerous examples already occurring and provide an indication of how common the practice of deception is.
Miguel Rodriguez:
I think the issue here is not so much with the wording but that a polically apointed PR man ordered the changes and warned of consequences if the orders were not followed.
Politization of science is something that typically happens in totalitarian countries, where a regime wants to control every aspect of public discourse.
I.E it’s a known “bad sign”.
The intent of Douche IS to worm religion in, which IS anti-intellectualism, and very unscientific. There are no scientific journals on ID, because there is no scientific evidence for ID. Contrary to your assessment, there IS evidence for there having been a big bang. The only ego-serving happening is stemming from George Bush’s unscientific religious agenda, and of course, yourself, apparently you proud ignorant sap.
TBN, the primary offender, trotted out their “scientist†to explain that this was all wrong, and assured the viewer that we were in fact in the center of the universe.
I wouldn’t say that the statement is technically wrong.
From what we can see of the universe, it’s probably fair to say we can see equally far in all directions.
From what we can see, we are, in fact, at the centre of the universe.
Of course Xasqdfa48z9 and his astronomer associates on a non-descript planet orbiting a non-descript star in the Sombrero galaxy can rightfully make the same claim.
The Big Bang is a theory. regardless of your narrowminded anti-intellectualism. You fear religion may somehow worm its way into the issue, which clouds your judgement. Leaving religion aside, the Big Bang is still a theory. There are evidences suggesting its occurrence, but no facts, no photos, no ego-serving blogs of witnesses to read.
Another person who doesn’t understand how scientific “theory” differs from colloquial “theory.”
BA - a suggestion - perhaps a writeup somewhere where people can see it easily, that explains the difference between scientific theory and the colloquial term “theory”. Then, rather than rehashing it every few entries, we can just point folks like Miguel to the link and they can read it if they feel like learning something? It really does seem that the religious folk get hung up on “theory”, and it’s due to ignorance. Science owes them a bit of education, I think.
Politization of science is something that typically happens in totalitarian countries, where a regime wants to control every aspect of public discourse.
That’s why the UK, Canada, Australia, USA control so much more of the public discourse than Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria… Of course, it’s science that makes dictators, not religion.
Bleah, please delete my last post. I apologize. I shouldn’t write so soon out of bed… foggy eyes make for bad reading, which makes this squid look like a bozo. Sorry Astro, you’re right, I just had a mental flat tire there.
PBS’ NOW had an episode that dealt with the Bush administration attempt to rewrite scientific findings, it isn’t limited to ID or astronomy;global warming and forestry issues were also mentioned. (Bush is serving two masters here corporate interest and the religious right.) Science progresses by daring unflinching accepting of the facts and thinking outside the box. The reality is that when politics (in this case) or any adherance to dogma becomes the primary concern rather than getting to the best fit for the data science suffers. My tendancy with Bush is just to roll my eyes and take pride in my vote for Kerry. I suspect the pendulum will swing sooner or later. It is frightening how easily it has been for Bush to push the United States toward theocracy.
A comment about Dr J.P. Hauks comment about I.D. I think it can be demonstrated it isn’t a theory, it isn’t even a hypothesis, it is a falsified hypothesis. A detailed analysis of living systems pretty convincingly demonstrates the overwhemling amount of proof that living systems contain errors that no intelligent designer would make. Here is a good essay by Kenneth Brown on the issue. http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/TR/Lifes-Design.html
Another example of a falsified hypothesis is that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who had an earlier evolutionary hypothesis before darwin (essentially traits were acquired directly from parents rather than from the germ line). It was fairly easy to put to the test and is now cited as an example in biology classes of a failed earlier hypothesis.
The good news: Science goes on.
The bad news: U.S. science is rapidly headed toward marginal status!
Fred Hoyle would definitely consider the BIG Bang to be a theory.
I am glad that this appointee is honest enough to say that I. D. is a regilious view.
My favorite tactic is to start discussion about the discrepancies between I.D and various observations, Like the universe is really only 4000 years old and everything that indicates otherwise was “created” that way. At this point I put a horrified look on my face and say something like “Oh, so you worship the Deceiver”, And leave.
This at least shakes them up so that I can escape and might even force a few to think.
“Science is respected and protected and highly valued by the administration,†he said.
He went on to say, “We have always been at war with Eastasia!”
Anyone out there who can link us with an email addy to which we can address our greivances regarding Mr. Deutch and company?
Congressional oversite committee members?
NASA governmental review board?
LET’S GET ACTIVE!!!
Kepp getting angry; learn to shout louder; your vigilance against this dangerous nonsense is the only hope.
Democratic Minority Comiittee Members:
Bart Gordon, Tennessee, Ranking Minority Member
Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
Lynn C. Woolsey, California
K Darlene Hooley, Oregon
Mark Udall, Colorado
David Wu, Oregon
Michael M. Honda, California
Brad Miller, North Carolina
Lincoln Davis, Tennessee
Russ Carnahan, Missouri
Daniel Lipinski, Illinois
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Brad Sherman, California
Brian Baird, Washington
Jim Matheson, Utah
Jim Costa, California
Charlie Melancon, Louisiana
Dennis Moore, Kansas
Minority Staff
Minority Office Main Phone - 202-225-6375
Minority Office Fax - 202-225-3895 or 202-226-0983
Name Title/Area Of Specialty Phone Number
Chuck Atkins Staff Director 202-225-6375
Jim Turner Chief Counsel 202-225-8128
Dan Pearson Deputy Staff Director 202-225-4494
Mike Lynch Counsel 202-226-3096
James Paul Professional Staff 202-226-3639
Alisha Prather Communications Director 202-225-6375
Chris King Professional Staff 202-225-7255
Christal Sheppard Professional Staff 202-225-6375
Leigh Ann Brown Staff Assistant 202-225-6375
Website:
http://sciencedems.house.gov/
Thank you very much for your article spotlighting yet another attempt by the Bush administration to deny and suppress anything that doesn’t fit with their personal view of the world. This is of course the same administration which has been trying to get the National Park Service at the Grand Canyon to make references to the Great Flood…where a book advocating this theory and endorsed by the *White House* (not Bush as a private citizen, but Bush in his formal role as the President) is offered for sale in the bookstore. So to HawaiianArmenian — I’m afraid geology is *already* under attack. I’m almost afraid to ask what’s next — are they going to start disputing Copernican theory and trying to convince us that the sun rotates around the earth? I wouldn’t put it past them. And for that matter — just what is a 24-year-old doing in what sounds like a considerably high-level post, anyway? Surely someone at least a little more seasoned would have been more appropriate…
And this President is the same one who only a few days ago talked about the need for math and science education so that we would be better equipped to come up with alternate energy sources…how on earth does he expect scientists to actually accomplish this if he’s pulling back on the reins so hard? This just goes to show what an utter crock that speech was…
P.S. to SuperiorAmerican — Sir (or madam?), methinks it is *you* who are confused rather than anyone here. The focus of science is the study of FACT — that is, what can be demonstrated as true through the use of reliable and valid empirical study (or am I using words which are too big for you?). Unfortunately, there are times when it is not possible to obtain the facts directly — there did not happen to be any human witnesses to the creation of the universe — so scientists are forced to create a hypothetical construct based on the information that is available and attempt to prove the validity of this construct through scientific research. There is always the possibility that the theory is incorrect, but it has the advantage of being to some extent based on factual and observable data. Religion, on the other hand, is the study of BELIEF — and belief need have absolutely nothing to do with facts, or even reality. Believing that something is true in the absence of evidence is not equivalent to *knowing* that something is true…and while scientists may not *know* that the Big Bang actually happened, you likewise do not *know* that God exists but only believe that He does (and I’m saying this as someone who chooses to believe that He does). If it’s silly to accept a theory as fact based on sketchy evidence, it’s equally silly if not more so to reject the factual data for no other reason than it challenges your preferred notions of what the world should be.
This is a really profoundly bad development. Science is truth, nothing is more important to our species than truth.
I’m actually lost for any more words to say.
Hell I think the government is becoming so anti-science that this maybe happening at a lot of government agencies.
It is my understanding of local gossip in Boulder, CO where I live, that there have been extensive “cutbacks” within the ranks of ICAR and NOAA of scientists, researchers and executives who lead the research and analyzed the data in and around global warming going back 10-15 years.
What this says to me is since the administration can’t get the information it wants from the studies, then they cancel the studies and fire the researchers. Ignorance is Bliss. To which I say Ignorance will lose your next election and further divide otherwise smart, and dedicated Americans.
We can prove many aspects of evolution and of the Big Bang. Can anyone prove the existence of god?
r
So what can we who work for the public sector do! And has anyone else in the education field spied the multiple opportunities to teach and inform our students and the teachers we work with?
This is typical of the Bush Administration. They place people in charge who have no qualifications, or people who are simply trying to further the Bush agenda: anti-science, anti-labor, anti-middle class, anti-lower class. They don’t mind free thinkers, as long as you think like them.
how about a seperation of Science and State, Research and State and Nasa and State? Where in the constitution does it say Government has ANY place in this? Nasa should be split: privitized out of Government hands and funding, and keep a small piece for military purposes. The government shouldn’t be worrying about science and religion. It should protect free speech, not “validate” any speech whether scientific, religious, or about why people visit prostitutes (there was a study on this). People have the right to say and believe what they want. Why was NASA looking at this ANYWAY? Should it be studied? Yes, but not the Space Program, not matter how well intentioned. Should it have been squashed by the Gov’t? No, and it couldn’t if it wasn’t under the Gov’t. Consider your tax Dollars wasted twice in one step.
Besides, South Park says Global Warming hasn’t been proven to be caused by Humans.
Laguna2 wrote:
“Nothing on CNN about it.
Nothing on ABC.
Nothing on MSNBC
Nothing on Yahoo News
Nothing on USA Today
Had to search for it at the NYTimes.”
There’s still hope. Maybe Jon Stewart will pick it up and will have BA on “The Daily Show.
Hey Phil,
Great work … We’ve been seeing it for a while. Much like Babylon 5 and other great shows the US is becoming what everyone warned us about. ;P
Now, what’s very interesting is those guys on Jan 30th who openly claimed against 9/11 being anything but a controlled demolition. (Scholars for 911 truth)
Now the Downing Street Memo II is out… I have to say, I’m very impressed with the publics ability to be deluded by crap.
Laguna2 Says:
February 5th, 2006 at 5:35 am
What comes in my mind.
Is it really that bad beeing called a liberal in the US?
Shouldent it be something positive to be liberal?
Doesn’t that mean to have an open mind for other ideas, to think out of the box of dogma?
I get the impression that either you are conservative (which is ultra right-wing from a german viewpoint) or you are democrat (which is right-wing from a german viewpoint). Everything a little bit to the left of this is considered as liberal or communist, if there is made a difference between those two.
Is this just my impression or (political) reality?
Well… Actually, it is funny you Bring Germany up. Germany is the one country to pull off what the US is doing now, which is a fascist take over.
The villianizing of the other political party and the denouncing of any idea that is not theirs is a sure sign of very bad things.
This is a series of a long line of corporate manipulations to impose ignoance on Americans.
The media silence on this is a bit worrying. Google news does turn up a good editorial in the Houston Chronicle, but little else. This should be a major story and I hope it will receive massive publicity it deserves in the next few days. Once again, I’m glad that I read the BA blog every day.
I’m glad I’m not alone–it’s good to see so many people who actually think calling all this crap from the “thief in chief” good ol’ boys what it is: nepotism and cronyism. But who’s going to truly do something about all this? They don’t care what even the majority of scientists think?
The alternative to this bunch of mobsters, which really and truly gives “mobsters” a band name, is the Democrats—and they have no power and will exercise little outrage consistently. Bush and his whole crew should have been impeached for many, many other things more egregious than this but no one has the guts in DC. Now a few of the Republican crew are trying to distance themselves a bit from this bunch of criminals but everyone should remember: they vote on party lines most of the time and even McCain supported him (even after the way he was treated in the primaries).
I don’t really know where to turn. The average guy on the street is so easily manipulated and, to tell the truth, just plain stupid and happy to be that way. Maybe when we have to go to war to keep from paying our debts to the countries we continually give away our jobs, our best scientists and students will things become clear to the “man on the street”. I’m just totally disgusted when average folks line up to buy all the vehicles from “american companies” and then watch as they close factories, etc…–never mind the fact that most of the parts in those vehicles have been outsourced.
I read one of your posts about a good scientist getting ready to leave because the idiocy over stem cell research and it proves my point. How can an idiot backed up by crooks and criminals lead anyone anywhere? How can a person who secretely hates intellectuals ever rely on anyone except “his bestest buddies”? I’m just disgusted and I don’t see things improving unless there’s a new viable third party alternative. Thanks Phil for having the guts to take a stand—most folks, even in academia, won’t do so because they know how tentative their jobs are. I truly appreciate Dr. Hansen taking a stand because he’s doing it also for all the younger researchers and scientists who can easily be fired and who can’t afford to lose their jobs.
I wish that the good people of this country, many of whom are very religious, would realize how they’ve been sold a bill of goods by these greedy jerks! There is no conflict between religion and science—they operate on different domains. A scientific theory is strong because it makes predictions about the natural world and may be proven wrong. Religion makes no such predictions that are falsifiable but to many, many folks it is a source of strength. We need to get the “man on the street” on the side of science and rational thought.
I’d like to see CNN, etc…have a continuous stream of scientists speaking out on all this–maybe Phil can be the first! I’d suggest Chris Mooney next. Call them, demand equal time. In the time they spend sucking up to the White House with their “inside” presidential reporter (what a joke–no critical thought nor hard questions), they could talk with a different scientist every week.
The only thing they fear is public embarrassment. Take your fight to the man on the street—hopefully, with gas prices, loss of jobs, no health care and the added insult to injury of tax cuts for the rich (it used to be called trickle-down or voodoo economics when it didn’t work a long time ago…Wonder why no democrats have mentioned this?), someone might just listen now.
I am putting fingers to keyboard for the first time to register disgust at the situation re NASA newboy who wants to throw his weight around. ‘Correcting’ senior Scientist’s papers indeed! I hope by now some responsible supervisor has counselled (sorry Australian spelling) him in the error of his ways. And the American People swiftly counsel their political masters (?) in no uncertain terms. Though I’m wondering if a long held position… theory… opinion … by Noam Chomsky is in operation here.
I mean, is this a diversion, a bit of business, to whip up, or have the media stir the general populace just for the fun of it? Of course they will deny it, meanwhile going about their agenda, in other departments, other lobbies, other countries, ( and other worlds? ). But who is using whom?
Here in Australia we have a Bush ‘yes’ man for a Prime Minister, embarassing for us as you can readily appreciate, but I don’t think he has appointed such an inappopriate person to any comparable government agency. I hope not anyway! As for the IDers, yes they have been trying their luck here as well, but they get short shift, and are generally ridiculed. Doesn’t seem to deter them much. In the 67 blogs I read before being moved to comment, there did not seem to be any support for, or even any attempt to justify their position, ( there cannot be a reasonable explanation surely? ) and the assertion that in a hundred years time our scientific decendants will look back at our quaint ‘theories’, the same way as we observe those at the turn of the 20th Century, is illogical.
Theory and hypothesy et al assert small findings contribute to an understanding of a universal question, and those findings are added to the growing knowledge after testing. Those that are found wanting are discarded, but the sum total is always increasing, as is our understanding. That which we now know is much more than previously known but in the ( distant ) future, they will have OUR ‘building blocks’ as the basis of their endeavours. It’s just that they will have found out that much more, and not changed completely to another line of thinking after discarding the whole of the previous “Beliefs’.
The pity of it is that the young are taught these ID variations when they have nothing to compare them to, it’s just dogma. Where have I heard that before? And someone must have positioned our luckless young Press Officer in the vunerable NASA Bureau. All I can say now is ” Please explain “! ( with apologies, or not, to Pauline!
For the life of me, I can’t imagine why science is, apparently, being suppressed in the government. The only conclusion that I can reach is that the government is filled with religious evangelists who see scientific knowledge as a threat to their beliefs and the well-being of humanity. If this were the actual case, it would mean that our country is on its way to becoming a 16th Century theocracy. What’s next? Burning scientists at the stake?
Do a Yahoo News search for “Nasa climate silence”. I get 46 articles. 18 of these, almost 40%, are foreign newspapers. Another 15, about 33%, are not real newspapers, they are either blogs or specialty sites (mostly environmental or science-oriented, although there is one cycling newspaper of all things). One is simply an unintelligable RSS feed from a major newspaper. Two are interviews with just a sentence or two on the issue each. The remaining 9 (less than 20%) are from real newspapers or news organization. Of those, there are 2 from Birmhingham, one from Arizona, two from Miami, one from some little town that I can’t seem to figure out where it is, one from San Fransisco, then the AFP and New York Times. I would wager tha only the AFP and New York Times could be considered major national news sources, and The Herald and San Fransisco Chronicle are probably the only other huge local news sources (perhaps people in Alabama might clarify that). Even including the news sources in Alabama, we are talking 13% from major news sources. That is abysmal. That we had to hear about this from a blog is incredible to me (no offense intended Phil).
Oh, yes. Regarding Neuroscience. Luckily for me I do not think we are quite at that point yet. Although it is well-established among those in the field that there is no need for anything immaterial in the human mind, and that the human mind is just a part of the human brain functioning, we do not yet have a high enough level of understanding where we can actually see major, real-world understanding of this fact. Most neuroscience-oriented research seems to be one or more of 4 things: curing diseases like Alzhiemer’s and Parkinson’s, learning how the nervous system operate on a 1-4 or 5 neuron level, looking at general levels of brain activity in different regions during activities, or studying the senses. We are no where near the level that you see in The Matrix or Ghost in the Shell where we are able to interact with the human mind on a large and direct level. Most people probably see this as Sci-Fi, and rightly so. The only commercially available device that interact directly with the human nervous system are cochlear implants that attach to the auditory nerve and allow deaf people to hear. The only ones on the immediate horizon interact with the visual system (retina, optic nerve, or primarily visual cortex), the primary motor cortex, and direct stimulation of muscles. These are all extremely peripheral systems, they are no where near where we understand human conciousness to lie (I am talking probably on the order of 5-10 stages away if not more). Although I am sure the ID/Creationist crowd is somewhat threatened by us, we probably do not currently have enough public visibility to draw their attention away from more immediate concerns like evolution, cosmology, astronomy, and geology.
You know, we also have something called “THEORY of Gravity.” I wonder whether there are people who’d cease on that and start calling gravity an “opinion” as well. I wonder why America seems to be the only nation where politics dictates what is science. Why is it that the media, and hence the general population treats corrupt politicians as trustworthy scientific authorities, while mistrusts and shuns real scientists as activists on scientific questions? Somehow the value system in America got turned upside down such that intelligence and education are frowned upon, while power, money, and politics are trusted above all.
Recently I saw a clip from The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert (”aggravated assult,” you can find it on the show’s website) where he explains that criminally aggressive pro sport players are honored, respected, idolized in America becuase they can get away with anything. Hence the kids watching the news want to grow up to be aggressive football players as well.
It seems to me that these days the kids are also taught that being a corrupt politician is also good. Their role models lie, cheat, commit all but the most inhumane atrocities, and still get away with them.
In either case, Stephen cynically concludes that our kid would more likely aspire to be scientists if we let our scientists get away with murder. “If your kid gets an A in physics, let him shoplift.”
We the people pay Dr. Hansen’s salary through funding authorized by Congress. He is a civil service employee hired many years ago. He is not a political appointee. He is not dealing with military secrets. He was speaking toward anyone responsible for heat-trapping emissions, not necessarily the government. If Hansen has learned something or has developed an opinion within his area of expertise while I am paying him, I demand the right to be told what it is. So should Congress. No ignorant young political hack should be censoring what anyone might hear from senior scientists. Otherwise, our supposedly democratic government is utilizing das Führerprinzip. As a member of a democratic society, I expect tax-paid researchers to provide me with candid reports with which I can make informed decisions before I make policy requests of my elected officials. I’m sorry if that is inconvenient for politicians in a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Holy moley, get ready for the middle ages again!
[…] Outrage at attacks on NASA science (BlogsNow) […]
How about a seperation of Science and State…Where in the constitution does it say Government has ANY place in this? Nasa should be split: privitized out of Government hands and funding, and keep a small piece for military purposes…Why was NASA looking at this ANYWAY? Should it be studied? Yes, but not the Space Program, not matter how well intentioned. Should it have been squashed by the Gov’t? No, and it couldn’t if it wasn’t under the Gov’t. Consider your tax Dollars wasted twice in one step.
Besides, South Park says Global Warming hasn’t been proven to be caused by Humans.
**********
A couple of good questions, which at least shows that you’re actually *thinking* (unlike one or two other posters on this board). I don’t work for NASA nor am I even an astronomer — but I do read a good deal (hence my handle) and so I’d like to contribute some thoughts if I may. My memory, while quite excellent, is not always 100% and so I may be incorrect on some of these conclusions — but I’m usually fairly accurate…
Firstly, while privatization of NASA would largely solve the problem of government interference, the fact unfortunately remains that it takes a *tremendous* amount of money to put a man in space and do all the other kinds of research that NASA does. In order to privatize any industry, one of the factors which must be taken into consideration is how it will turn a profit or at the very least break even — even nonprofits have to bring in more money than goes out if they want to continue operating. At this point in time at least, it probably would not be feasible to privatize NASA unless it were at the hands of an extremely wealthy and generous philanthropist willing to donate his money without caveat in the interest of science rather than with the expectation of some sort of monetary return on investment. If you know of someone like that, please let us know…
Secondly, it’s true that the issue of global warming on the surface of it might seem like one better suited to scientists at the National Weather Service or the Environmental Protection Agency — but one can argue that it’s a legitimate part of NASA’s purview as well. Most laymen might be inclined to think of NASA’s focus as being restricted(!) to “outer space” — i.e., everything beyond the limits of our atmosphere. However, the study of astronomy includes the subcategory of what might be called planetology — and understanding the nature of our own planet is a good first step towards understanding the nature of other planets. Not only that, Earth’s planetary forces such as gravitation and atmospheric change also have an impact upon one of NASA’s other areas of specialization — astronautics. In this capacity, global warming could potentially come under the jurisdiction of NASA because global warming could potentially affect the composition of the atmosphere which in turn could affect such things as rocket ignition or satellite re-entry…
Thirdly, it’s actually true that global warming is a historical planetary phenomenon and not *solely* attributable to the actions of humans. However, evidence is appearing which suggests that the industrial and technological advances of human beings have been contributing to it — and it is important that we consider the consequences of what we do, since anything we do that has a serious impact on our ecosystem will inevitably also have some impact on us. If sea levels rise and flood the coasts, large numbers of people in the United States will be driven further inland which will in turn affect housing — the same flooding wold also affect food production. If global temperatures rise, this likewise may have an impact on food production — and even an increase might have its potential drawbacks as well as its advantages, since increases in food supply historically often foster increases in the birth rate and/or decreases in infant mortality. So you see, science isn’t quite as simple and straightforward as it appears on the surface — or as some people would have you think it is!
Bear in mind, folks, that I heard about this from the New York Times, so the media is not exactly ignoring it. It was also published on a Friday night, before the Superbowl, so it’s not going to get much ink. That’s why I’m writing my congresscritters now.
I don’t believe that Bush is anti-science. I think he does not give a f**k. Sorry for the expletive, but it’s the only appropriate term here. Now let’s hope that Mike Griffin has the guts and decency to stand up for the organisation he is supposed to serve, and fire this punk!
Yeah well if there’s an issue on which the scientific consensus is something that Bush likes then I’m sure he’ll look pretty proscience on that.
Exactly.
bestonnet Says:
“Yeah well if there’s an issue on which the scientific consensus is something that Bush likes then I’m sure he’ll look pretty proscience on that.”
That may be a purely hypothetical scenario, though. I have never heard of any scientific issue on which Bush agrees with the scientific consensus. It doesn’t mean no such an issue exists, but I wouldn’t be suprised if it doesn’t.
Yeah, the 24-year-old, political appointee, creationist part.
[…] The Bad Astronomy Blog has an interesting story about presidential interference in NASA’s scientific operations. It seems that the president is happy to be pro-science as long as none of the findings conflict with his supporter’s beliefes or short-term financial beliefs. […]
Governments fight wars for power, whereas soldiers fight for a cause. All this is just a rouse, diverting us from the real issue. This is simply about power. Deutsch is a pawn. While he naively fights for his cause; the government’s true purpose is to suppress knowledge and information. With knowledge and information comes the questioning of power. It is a doctrine of modern communist and fascist states. How similar to a Soviet Political Officer is having a Public Affairs Officer being present whenever Dr. Hansen makes a public statement?
The use of religion is simply another tool of control. One that is as old as man. For example, the early Catholic Church used fear and ignorance to control the populace. The “party line†was that the afterlife was all important, and there was no need to attempt to understand the physical world. Yet, where was that written in the Bible?
The church used to condemn any questioning of their authority as heresy. They would put to death those who dare translate religious text (Bible) from Latin to the common language of the people. Why would a religious institution want to repress the dissimilation of religion? With knowledge comes questioning and with questioning, potential descent. Before you know it, the Reformation happens and your power is diminished. Yet, to the masses, it all appears to be about religion.
So all the while we’re fighting for our causes in the trenches, the government is consolidating power.
Here’s Deutsch’s email…obviously fair game, don’t you think?
Email link deleted by The Bad Astronomer — no, it is not fair to flood this guy with emails.
Phil,
While NASA put 12 men ON the moon, they sent a lot more TO the moon.
“To the Moon, Alice, To the Moon!”
Time to say something controversial:
The problem in the US is the two-party system. As long as the Democrats are more liberal then the Republicans, all liberals will vote Democrat and all conservatives will vote Republican. Fine, you say.
Now here’s the problem.
The two parties could be nearly identical, with only minor policy differences. You’d still get the vote split. Or one party could shoot off into extremism, and you’d still get the vote split. A Democrat will not vote Republican, and a Republican will not vote Democrat.
Get some more parties! In Canada, we have a bunch of wacky, extremist parties. BUT NO ONE VOTES FOR THEM. The two main parties (the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada, ironically enough) both fall into the just-right of Democrat to just-left of Republican range. We generally end up with a conservative financial policy and a liberal social policy. We end up being centrist.
Then there’s the notion of minority government. We have one now. What that means is that if the ruling party screws up, the other parties can bring down the government and an election is called. That’s what happened to our last government. The minority Liberals were involved ina scandal ($100 million CAD was stolen from public funds) and the government fell. Election, new government.
But in the US, the only way to do something like that is to impeach the President, which is rare.
You guys need more parties.
It’s made FARK, the link is already put of bandwidth, but at
least the word is getting out.
Nasa should be split: privitized out of Government hands and funding, and keep a small piece for military purposes . . . Should it have been squashed by the Gov’t? No, and it couldn’t if it wasn’t under the Gov’t.
Privatizing scientific research is a really, really bad idea.
Do you really think that it would be impossible for a private company to sit on newly-discovered scientific information? Or have I fallen victim to a troll?
Sorry - I meant out of bandwidth.
To The Black Cat — I’m afraid that I wouldn’t be quite so sanguine with regard to the neuroscience issue if I were you. For the past decade, psychology has been leaning rather heavily towards a biomedical model in which genetics and/or changes in biochemistry are being given primary attention as the underlying cause of mental illness. It’s also no secret that the pharmaceutical industry has a considerable amount of weight to throw around politically. Is it purely a coincidence that the last decade or so has seen an upsurge in the administration of Ritalin to control ADHD in children, or Prozac for comparatively moderate forms of depression? Mind you, I’m by no means one of those people who’s opposed to the administration of psychiatric medication (Tom Cruise, anyone?) — but I’m of the opinion that it should be considered only one of the possible treatment options and not the automatic first choice, at least with disorders which are primarily emotional in nature such as depression rather than those which are primarily kinetic such as Parkinson’s.
While the current Bush administration is not responsible for this paradigm shift, what I do find disquieting are proposals such as those put forward by the Pharmaceuticals Researchers and Manufacturers of America (a lobbying group) advocating the universal screening of *all* Americans for psychiatric ailments — proposals to which Bush is reportedly favorably inclined…
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458
On the surface, of course, such measures appear to be wholly benevolent and in the best interests of the general public — but if you’ll excuse the phrase, it hardly takes a rocket scientist(!) to know that things aren’t always what they appear to be on the surface or don’t always end up being what they were designed to be. It’s true that such screenings could be greatly beneficial for people who may be suffering and yet resistant to seeking treatment. However, without at least some sort of confirmation either from my own experience or those of my family and friends, I myself would be deeply skeptical about receiving a diagnosis of mental illness under these circumstances — and especially if the treatments offered were produced by the very same people conducting the screen! To my way of thinking, policies like this open the door to some very disturbing and dangerous possibilities — ranging from simple efforts to erode individuality in favor of a more uniform societal ideal, to diagnosing any political dissenters as “mentally unfit” and removing them to inpatient treatment centers “for their own good”.
Because of this hullaballoo - and everyone should continue making it a hullaballoo - yesterday at the NASA web site, NASA Admistrator Mike Griffith issued this statement on NASA’s commitment to openness, with emphasis added by me:
It can be found HERE
Whatever you do, don’t resort to name calling. The fact is that the average person is a believer in a God that he can turn to in time of need. I seriously doubt that he can grasp the highly technical math and logic that is required to be a scientist. But when a concept as simple as ID is presented, it is easy to accept. Because it is an easy concept that is right in line with his existing beliefs. It can and will be accepted because most people are not prepared to understand the present outpouring of knowledge we have about, for example, the expansion of the universe that the Big Bang requires. We can see it, he can’t even imagine it. But if he is put on the defensive about his beliefs, right or wrong, he will go to the one that he can find comfort in. That will be the God based one.
As far as writing to your representatives, have at it, but don’t expect much action from them. I can’t tell a republican from a democrat anymore. Both parties seem to be more interested in getting or staying in power above the well being of their constituents. Certainly above science. Only votes matter and now with the candidates selected for us to vote for, I wonder how long that will matter.
Anyway, as I said in the beginning, don’t offend those who can help us at the ballot box. Court them with simplified explanations of our knowledge like George Gamow and Fred Hoyle attempted. Hopefully when they understand that we work for them, and not against them, we can overcome some of the radical el