I am normally not this partisan on my blog, but I am having a hard time seeing this any other way.
In March, I wrote about (Democratic Representative) Brad Miller looking into science suppression in government-funded agencies. Miller went farther this week, introducing an amendment to a bill that would basically prevent the government from punishing whistle-blowers who want to report any suppression of scientific findings that were made using government funding. The bill was to formally recognize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as a government agency, and was being considered by the House Science Committee. Several amendments were proposed, including Miller’s.
I have read this amendment, and it’s pretty clear: if someone in the NOAA feels that science is somehow being suppressed, the government can in no way make any moves to stop this person from pursuing recourse. This seems like a good idea to me, especially since the government has been suppressing scientific findings for some time now, and more allegations of it surface on a weekly basis. In fact, there have been issues with the NOAA specifically about the government suppressing global warming findings.
So in an agency devoted to discussing the science of the ocean and the atmosphere, it strikes me as a good thing to add to a bill an amendment to stop suppression of that science. Wouldn’t you think so, too?
The Republicans on the House Science Committee disagree. The amendment was rejected, 17-13. Every no vote was from a Republican. Every yes vote was from a Democrat.
Why would Republicans vote down a measure to make sure that science was carried out in a free and open manner?
Rep. Boehlert, the chairman of the committee, gave an opinion on why he thought the amendment should be rejected. He gave two main reasons: one is that any whistle-blower should not rely on legislation for their freedom to act, it should be taken care of internally, inside the NOAA; and the second was that "No one at NOAA has been accused of ‘tampering’ with scientific research or ‘censoring’ findings – a vague term, in any event – or disseminating information known to be false. Yet those are the formal offenses created by this amendment.”
I have found many reasons to like Boehlert’s stand on science in the past, but I find this statement baffling. For one, while it is true that communication needs to be fixed in all the government agencies so that people can feel free to talk openly, I don’t think that’s going to happen on its own. If Deutsch hadn’t been outed by an article in the New York Times (and several others in the blogosphere, I’ll add), how long would it have taken him to be ousted by NASA? Mind you, he quit, he wasn’t fired.
Second, how can it hurt to have laws in place to make sure people aren’t coerced? After all, it would be nice if no one murdered anyone else, but that ain’t the real world. We have laws for a reason. A pre-emptive one, especially in an atmosphere where so many scientists are afraid to speak up, would do wonders for those of us in the reality-based world.
And scientists are afraid. I have heard many, many stories about people who are "walking on egg shells" (note: those were Boehlert’s own words) at their own place of work because there is an atmosphere that dissension will get you in trouble.
Also, Boehlert’s statement about no accusations being made at the NOAA has a very ironic twist: it came on the same day Senator Lieberman (D-CT) called for an investigation into political science suppression at four agencies, including — wait for it — the NOAA. Lieberman, no liberal he, seems to think there is a problem. Doesn’t Boehlert?
I sure do. Science cannot, must not work in those conditions. This government seems hell-bent on twisting and suppressing science that disagrees with its position, whether it’s global warming, creationism, or any other ideologically-based stance.
This must stop. And it must stop now. This suppression has a real impact, a serious impact. I’ve said it before: this is creeping Lysenkoism, pure and simple. This particular vote on this particular amendment may not cause grief in and of itself, but it is yet another brick in a very extensive wall being built, it seems, by Republicans in government who would rather deny reality, close their eyes, and click their heels together three times.
Science doesn’t work that way. And if this keeps up, science won’t work at all.
Hat tip to Sex, Drugs, and DNA for the news about this. You can also read more on Daily Kos. The image at the top is the cover of Chris Mooney’s book. Read his blog here.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
As long as Bush is in the White House it won’t matter. His “signing statements” consistently show that he feels sufficiently empowered to override any part of any legislation coming from Congress which he believes detracts from his authority as president.
I guarantee you, if Congress passes an amendment like this Bush will declare that he has the authority to ignore it when it serves his interests. Just like he did concerning the anti-torture bill (he claimed he still has the power to torture); just like he did concerning the enforcement of the Patriot Act (he claimed he had the authority to determine the constitutionality of the provisions)…
Our president believes he is superior to the Congress and the Court.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
I will admit to being disturbed by the way things are going regarding politics and science in general, I’m not sure that this is such a clear-cut example. Reading the entire opinion, it’s clear that the problems are being acknowledged, and the main objections I got from it were more practical than ideological, namely that the ammendment was poorly constructed and was likely to bog the bill down in other committees. I certainly would rather have seen them fix it than defeat it, but this post seems to be an oversimplification to me.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Wayne, I considered that. I don’t think Boehlert’s reasons hold much water. I am not an expert in this of course, but the red-tape reaons sound hollow to me. And we do have lots of evidence of tampering with scientific results in other agencies, so why not pre-emptively do something about it?
And I keep looking back at how that vote split down party lines. I think that says a lot about how things went.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:43 am
This kind tears me in two. I’ll say up front, I’m a proud card carrying Republican who votes more Libertarian than Republican…South Park Conservative labels me pretty well.
In one respect, yeah…that amendment was bad. It was voted down becayse Boeller thought it was poorly constructed. Hopefully something better comes back up. But, like you said…Boeller’s statement about not needing a law to protect whistleblowers is downright ignorant. However, we need something to protect people from whistleblowers as well. If we’re going to protect people from speaking out, we need to make sure whoever is being spoken about has options if the whistleblower is blowing smoke.
But anyways…let’s see if something a little better written comes in and everyone can get behind it. I would put this under Justice Delayed, not Denied.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:47 am
I, for one, thanked Bush for his vision to space. That’s about it. Every other thing he’s done in office gets my dander up. I voted for the other guy. Both times. There really wasn’t much of a choice in a democratic candidate, but that’s the party’s own fault. 2008… two more years. We may not have that long before serious damage to our country’s image and internal workings are crippled.
At any rate, science will continue. Will we be able to take a dominant role on the world stage? How about education?
June 16th, 2006 at 6:20 am
“His vision for space”?!
He vaguely suggested that we should somehow, sometime, give massive amounts of money to the least effective programs of NASA to conduct dangerous and expensive missions that offer far less in terms of scientific discovery than the unmanned missions that could be sent on a fraction of that budget.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:58 am
When astronomers tackle politics…
A couple of weeks ago I did a post on the perceived Republican war on science. Today I see two articles directly related to that same logic ( one even citing the book I ridiculed ). First, I read Bad…
June 16th, 2006 at 7:37 am
First of all, I want to go on record as saying that I appreciate when Phil tackles politics. This is Phil’s blog. He can talk about eggplant parmesean if he wants. Those who don’t like it can start their own blog.
Which brings me to point number 2. I want to thank Moonage Political Webdream for addressing Phil’s blog in your own blog, and posting a link here in the comments.
Now it’s up to me to figure out who is closer to the truth.
Rats!
J. D.
June 16th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Because they didn’t think that this was the purpose of the amendment.
Because they’re gunshy about “whistle-blowers” who are actually political polemicists hammering inconclusive findings into rhetorical weapons for the not-so-loyal opposition and the plaintiff’s bar.
You know this better than they do. How many half-baked case-control or open-label studies does it take before a provable falsehood becomes a tool to create stupid public policy? How many “whistle-blowers” does it take, each one trumpeting their pet statistics, before the political process, in its irrational glory, marches off a cliff?
Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. I’m a practicing physician with a degree in mathematics, and I can guarantee that most of the statistics in public health are nonsense. Whether it’s the association between cell phones and traffic accidents (provably absent to any meaningful degree) or the never-sufficiently-dead “link” between vaccines and autism, every day of my life I’m seeing earnest discussion of absolutely idiotic ideas. And public policy, up and down the line, that panders to them.
Don’t get me wrong - I depend for my life and those of my patients on good science. I don’t EVER want results suppressed, and I fully support policies and standards that require that, whether publicly or privately funded, science be fully and honestly reported.
And if those standards are breached, we do have existing laws that protect people who bring those breaches to public attention. Whether those laws are strong enough, or properly written, I don’t know, and the current debate is not enlightening.
I haven’t read the amendment, and I won’t likely have time to. But its claims to “stop suppression of results” in science, coupled with the way it was voted and presented, make me think that this was Washington politics as usual. I’m not fond of either party right now, but I certainly don’t think that Republicans have a monopoly on stupid.
June 16th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Part of the issue seems to be that the proposed amendment would have changed the entire scope of the overall bill. This bill had the intent of formally establishing NOAA. The scope of the bill is thusly the NOAA. The proposed amendment seems aimed at addressing a larger scope issue across the board at all agencies. Even though the context appears to be encoding specific actions in NOAA, the issue is more fundamentally applicable to all Federal agencies, and should be addressed there. Which it appears there already is legislation in consideration and debate for that very purpose.
It does trouble me that the voting is strictly down party lines. I note that the number of abstentions is higher than the number of yes votes - abstentions from both parties. In fact, it’s a three way split in voting.
I’m not sure I agree with all of Sen. Boehlert’s reasons, either. But there seems to be more at play here than a simple “protection from Administration tampering” vs. “protect the Administration’s ability to tamper”.
I also have issues with what Moonage Political Webdream says on his blog. For instance, he criticizes Chris Mooney’s book for
I’m sorry he doesn’t appreciate being lumped with the Religious Right. Perhaps he should take that up with his party leadership. Just because he doesn’t appreciate it doesn’t mean that the Republican Party is not catering to and highly entangled with the Religious Right. If he has issues with how he is being perceived, then he needs to take action within his party, or change his party affiliation.
I’m not sure what he thinks he’s rebutting by pulling out that Hawking/Pope John Paul II example. Yes, there are other religious conflicts with science outside of American politics. That doesn’t negate the ones inside American politics. The complaint is not that there aren’t more widespread issues. The complaint is that the Republican Party is fostering the conflict.
And the defense of the President on the stem cell issue is laughable. President Bush cherry picked inaccurate information to support the decision he already wanted to make, namely not to fund stem cell research. Yes, he allowed existing stem cell lines to be funded, but the problem is that the science community informed him that the existing lines would be inadequate for substantial research and he ignored that and said the opposite. Yes, non-governmental research funding can be had, but that doesn’t negate the impact that Bush’s decision has had on American stem cell research.
I suppose this post will get me lumped in with “people like Phil”.
June 16th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Sigh, “Donkey Kong” doesn’t win even when he is right.
It is the people like the BA that keep science alive.
They work in science and openly encourage people to
be interested in science. The Republicans, however,
are only interested in what helps or hurts them and not the whole country. Where is George Washington when you need him?
June 16th, 2006 at 9:27 am
[…] Update: Phil has more on the Miller amendment, which was voted down along party lines. And DarkSyde has his own report on the science events at YearlyKos, including a link to a transcript of Wesley Clark’s speech. […]
June 16th, 2006 at 9:36 am
I disagree pretty strongly with Moonage, of course. He says this amendment flew in the face of the Constitution. If that’s true, why didn’t Boehlert mention it? They are sworn to defend the Constitution!
Irishman is precisely right as well. It is completely clear that this Administration, from top to bottom, is swayed hugely by the religious right. I would venture as far as to say that they, along with a handful of other special interests, are driving thr politics of this country right now. Again, as Irishman said, if Moonage doesn’t want to be lumped in with this, then he needs to bring it up with his party leaders. They have made it very clear who they listen to.
And as far as what Bartlett is saying, again I disagree. Miller has been very concerned about what he perceives (correctly, IMO) as a concerted effort to suppress science that goes against the ideology of this Administration. He put that amendment in there, again IMO, to help prevent this from the start.
Mind you, amendments are tacked onto bills in the House all the time, and a huge number of them have nothing whatsoever to do with the bill itself. This one was directly relevant, dealt with issues known to be true, and again, I must point out was voted down strictly along party lines.
June 16th, 2006 at 9:44 am
There is a solution to this problem.
Come 2008, don’t vote republican or democrat. Vote Libertarian. Even if you don’t approve of their politics, the Libertarian’s position on science is strong and supportive.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Yes I agree with you, the suppression of science must stop.
I thnink the current goverment is suppressing the science to increse fear and to limit protests from the peole of science.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Max: Do you have any sources of information dealing with the Libertarian position on science and science funding? I’ve not been able to find a lot on the topic. From listening to some libertarians in the past I would have thought I might have some problems with their policies in this area.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
I find it interesting/disturbing that this political regime denounces science but willingly prays to a great big god in the sky to make everything alright. “WAKE UP AMERICA”.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I have never aligned myself with any party, mostly because I don’t agree wholly with any of them. At one point I thought I was a Rep., other times I was sure I was a Dem. Now? I think the government is completely corrupt and cares only about self preservation.
This kind of political maneuvering and posturing really gets my goat, though. I just wish they would vote for what’s right; what makes the most sense, rather than what the party supports. It’s a disservice to this country for a rebublican to vote down something purely because a democrat proposed it and vice versa. Look what it is and what it can do for the country, not for what it will do to the next election!
Oh, wait…there’s that pesky self-preservation thing again…
June 16th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Whoa Phil, I did not say it flew in the face of the Constitution, I said it flew in the face of a recent US Supreme Court decision. To say the very least, that’s a very important distinction. Per the NY Times:
“The Supreme Court declared today, in a ruling affecting millions of government employees, that the Constitution does not always protect their free-speech rights for what they say on the job.”
That’s not an article from ancient history, that was two weeks ago. To turn right around and pass legislation that totally contradicts a still hot topic from the Supreme Court is flying about as much in its face as you can. Most legislators are lawyers, they understand how the law works. They know it makes Congress look kinda stupid when a law they pass gets shot down in flames on the first shot. This one would have in a heartbeat. And, people couldn’t have blamed it on the Justices because it was very clearly spelled out to them what it meant in the New York Times.
Now, I bet Kos or Chris Mooney didn’t bother fooling with that, now did they? There’s reality, and there’s rhetoric. Kos and Chris Mooney are 100% rhetoric. People like me who dwell in the realities of politics just get shot at by people on both sides of the issue. This issue is no war on science. It’s a legal reality. The bigger issue of whistleblowing in general needs to be addressed before the applications of it have any reason at all to be discussed. In this case, the legislation was presented, and it sounded good. During the legislative process, and outside of it, The Supreme Court greatly limited whistleblowing. Therefore, the legislation being referred to now became totally obsolete. Passing it would have just looked plain stupid. However, since it was already on the floor, they got to vote on it anyway. In reality, all that vote showed was those supporting it hadn’t read the news for at least two weeks. And you know what, I believe that to be true.
As for Irishman telling me I’m at odds with the national party, I know I am and state so all the time on my blog. I want my party back. The problem right now is the national Democrat party has gotten so wacky and radical liberal that my party heads see no reason at all to change.
This is Phil’s astronomy blog. I for one prefer to keep it an astronomy blog talking about the wonders of space. That’s why I come here. Rather than dumbing down Phil’s blog, let’s take the politics over to my blog or somewhere else. OK?
June 16th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Phil’s analogy to “creeping Lysenkoism” is closer and creepier than most people think. The creationist-fundamentalist mindset is a political movement which the Republicans of today have fully embraced. The Republicans have co-opted “conservative” and turned “liberal” into a derogatory word.
The NeoCon Republican party appears unified on the surface, as they always close ranks along party lines for political gain. If a radical rightwing Republican does something stupid, their moderates often remain silent.
The Democrats though far from perfect, are sloppy and argue among themselves. If a Democrat does something wrong, he’s only one dumb Democrat. The Democratic Party is framed as weak for this by Republicans.
But there is a big price to pay:
To may people today, to be a “Republican” now means that one agrees 100% with everything stated by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News etc. I hope more citizens, be they Democrats or Republicans, get wise to this.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
I think that the comment that the ammendment would have violated the constitution and would have been struck down is a gross misreading of the recent supreme court decision.
As I understand it (and I always welcome someone with more understanding of constitutional law to correct me) the supreme court ruled that existing whistleblower protections did not provide for protection of certain types of correspondence. Absent any specific protection of law, the First amendment provides for petitioning for redress of grievences, but this case was not protected generally under that provision (particularly since congress has established laws establishing procedures, and this was outside of them.)
Since the ruling was based on a lack of specific legislative protection, rather than the unconstitutionality of legislation, it would be fine for congress to simply draft a new law that offered protection.
There seems to be a misconception that any time the supreme court rules it means that X is either unconstitutional, or it is mandated by the constitution. In reality their rulings are almost always much more nuanced than that.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Moon said:
This is Phil’s astronomy blog. I for one prefer to keep it an astronomy blog talking about the wonders of space.
What is wrong with Phil talking about Astronomy AND politics? They do relate to each other. It is (as you said) his blog…
June 16th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Somehow the following didn’t “make it” into my last post…
Moon said: Rather than dumbing down Phil’s blog…
Just how does the disussion of political issues as they relate to science issues “dumb down” this blog??
June 16th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
I still disagree with you, Moonage. I don’t think scientists feel that the Supreme Court ruling was enough– I know many who are still “walking on eggshells” (again, Boehlert’s own words). Clearly, this is a situation that still exists despite the ruling.
We’ve had whistleblower laws already in place, too, but they are clearly not enough. And again, this amendment does not appear to me to be going against the ruling, it merely codifies the freedom whistleblowers should enjoy in this one agency.
Also, this Supreme Court appears unlikely to rule much against the way the White House would want something to go. I am not implying interference by the WH, I am saying that the two new judges, appointed by the WH, were chosen specifically because they are unlikely to go against the wishes of the WH. We have already seen solid evidence that at least one WH appointee was all too willing to suppress science along party lines — and we have seen many other examples of such problems about science — so forgive me if I am in a suspicious frame of mind about such things.
And Chris Mooney is much more than rhetoric. Have you actually read his book? He has many, many citations of Republican lawmakers mucking around with science, backed with references.
I won’t cast aspersions on all Republicans, because that’s unfair, and would be untrue in any case. Not even all Republicans in Congress are so strongly influenced by fundamentalism or by corporate greed, but the evidence that many are is overwhelming — and that many of these are in positions of considerable power. So again, as a scientist and skeptic, I have to watch these goings-on with a very, very jaundiced eye.
And I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: liberals and Democrats may be outraged at all of this, but it is the true Republicans themselves who should be furious. I remember when it was the Republicans supporting science against Democrats who were trying to cut it (like Proxmire and Mondale). This whole thing has gone topsy-turvy and left-for-right.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Phil,
Just wanted to ask if you saw Lou Dobbs on CNN on last Thursday evening? I generally respect his ideas and his willingness to call it like it is but…he really blew it with a man on man debate over global warming: he literally gave equal time to the contrarian viewpoint. This was exactly what Chris Mooney was referring to in his book!
I’ll give Lou some credit for asking some excellent questions but the ones I’d have like to have heard were:
1. Where does each person get his funding?
2. What percentage of respected scientist hold each view?
3. If there isn’t total agreement, should the consensus be followed and should action be taken to prevent a worse case scenario? (He did ask this to some degree but…)
I just wish you’d seen this interview and had the chance to write him. This is exactly what’s going on with your post today.
Finally, the one question I wish Lou would ask is: should bush be impeached? All this stuff finds its way back to that little crowd of insiders. They don’t value science and don’t believe in computer models but…how the hell can you run a climate experiment? Also, all the estimates are on the low end as far as what will happen! I’m just disgusted with everyone in DC at this point but it is good to hear from you that one or two folks are trying to do something.
Greg
June 16th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
What would happen if the amendment had passed? Could the rule be used to protect not only the scientific results of researchers but access to grant money for say, “global warming” research as well? …Maybe even NASA’s earth science space projects from the congressional axe?! (BA starts wringing his hands) A scientist could “sue” NASA for cutting a space program citing this amendment as protection against “filtering” politically unpalatable proposals. It goes all the way through the Federal Court system until both Congress and the Administration are ordered to fund these projects under a Supreme Court directive.
On the other hand, we have “Dr. Stanley, (newly crowned) PhD, PBR,” who wants to spend his University’s grant money to the tune $4 million on his pet project: The Effects of 2-4-Di-chloro-phenoxyacetic Acid on the Sex Life the European Corn Borer and It’s Socio-economic Impact in Outer Mongolia. When his proposal is soundly rejected by his senior peers on the grant committee, Dr. Stanley cries “foul” and promptly seeks satisfaction from a lawyer stating that it’s “climate related” and “I was politically wronged under the constitution and my valuable (future) research is being squelched…ref NOAA amdt., op cit.” The University caves and all other research stops. Litigation would abound until the Justice Dept takes over all authority to grant grants and scientific “grant-busing” would be the norm throughout the land.
…or maybe not! Perhaps it’s better the amendment didn’t pass in its current form. What do they do in Europe?
June 16th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
The amendment would only apply to NOAA people.
June 17th, 2006 at 2:01 am
Good news: Science, scientific research and scientific advancement will go on.
Bad news: U.S. leadership which many of us (including our political leaders) take for granted, may not!
June 17th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Travis,
Sorry it took so long to post a reply. The CATO institute is a good source of libertarian publications and information. Their home site is here.
http://www.cato.org
Specific publications on libertarian’s position on science can be found here.
http://www.cato.org/research/science-space/issues.html
And publications about space flight can be found here.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-20-99.html
or here
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/hudgins-030203.html
June 17th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
I used to live in a neighborhood that had only one cable company servicing it. Then a new company came to town and drove the prices down and the service level up. The two companies offered all sorts of perks and channel packages and the consumer benefited in the end.
I’m beginning to think that science could be much like the cable consumer. It might take some healthy competition from the European Union or the Chinese to get us back in gear. Ever since the Cold War ended, it’s as if we have no drive to accomplish anything in space or to overcome superstitions to explore new advances in biomedicine.
Maybe if the Chinese establish a presence on the Moon or make some notable advances in stem cell research it’ll be a wake-up call for American politicians. We need a Sputnik.
June 18th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Adrian says: “What do they do in Europe?”
The EU allocates a certain amount of funding (called a Framework), which is about €73 billion for the period 2007-2013 (Framework 7). The areas that will be funded were determined during a consultation stage with the EU parliament, the member states, the scientific community (which is pretty much global), and industry. Once the money is in place, research areas organise in large collaborations (with funny acronyms) and try to secure a slice of the pie. Individual research grants are then doled out on the basis of (internationally) peer reviewed grants.
When your research is not funded (after appeals to the committee), you can’t go to the courts, because the political battles have already been fought at a higher level.
June 18th, 2006 at 11:30 am
On the Libertarian side of things…
I’ve supported Libertarian candidates in the past (mainly due to a lack of choice on the part of “The big two”), and believe that while an official Libertarian position would involve an endorsement of science, their ideas of much smaller government (which I support in principle) would likely not sit will with the science researchers posting on this blog, if I read their interests properly.
Just to give an example, I heard one interview with a Libertarian presidential candidate (I think it was in 2000) who was going to get rid of income tax. The reporter seemed shocked at this, asking how the government could survive without that income. The response was “by doing much less.” Something tells me that the recent space mission cuts would seem to be a gentle shower compared to the downpour of mission cancellation to adjust to a “no income tax” budget. I haven’t followed the party close enough to know if the tax idea is still on their radar.
Ganted, related to this post, the answer may be “Minimal science funding may be OK, as long as someone feels free to whistle-blow about it” but I think that would be an oversimplification.
June 18th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
It’s true, the libertarian party does put smaller government as #1 on their list. In general, Libertarians believe that a government’s job is to provide police, courts, roads, defense and nothing else. So it would seem that NASA would get the ax if Libertarians are elected. But in reality, it’s not that bad.
You’ll find several members of the Libertarian party (like me) who see the work of NASA as important for this reason. It fulfills the even more important job of ensuring our survival.
Carl Sagan once said that “All civilizations become space faring or extinct†It is for this reason that many Libertarians are willing to grant an exception to space science and space travel.
June 18th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
In reality, libertarians will not get elected. And in a two-party system, this means that one should not vote for them. Nice and circular, but what can you do?
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Democrats are suppressing science ( does anyone care if it’s NOT Republicans doing it? )…
A while back, I responded to a post on Bad Astronomy when the author decided Republicans were destroying science. I got plenty of hate mail over my rebuttal. He then went at it again not too long ago, citing a…
March 16th, 2007 at 8:31 am
[…] suppression of scientific findings for the past few years. Examples of this aren’t terribly hard to dig up. And those are just from my site. Try going to Chris Mooney’s blog, or The […]
April 26th, 2007 at 9:48 am
[…] I read Bad Astronomy Blog’s article where he steps outside what he does best and offers political comment. What floored me most was he […]