The Bush Administration's War Against Science

[Doomstone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?hp


The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.

The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations.

Together, the two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."



The UCS report describes several specific examples of the Bush administration deliberately ignoring or distorting scientific results for purely ideological purposes:



A flat refusal to believe the (by now) almost unanimous scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming. In one case, the EPA had to scrap an entire section on climate change because the White Hous simply wouldn't accept any form of wording that was even remotely true to the scientific evidence.


The White House suppressed data on mercury emissions not because the science was wrong, but because it interfered with their plans to reduce regulation of coal-fired power plants. They also suppressed an EPA report on a bipartisan Senate alternative to their "Clear Skies" proposal because it concluded that the Senate version would do a better job of cutting pollution.


The Bush administration has interfered with CDC research on teen pregnancy that doesn't support its position on abstinence-only sex education programs. It has replaced condom information on government websites with questionable data emphasizing condom failure rates. And it has tried to push a link between abortion and breast cancer that is supported by no reputable scientific data.


A USDA researcher was prohibited from publishing his findings on health hazards posed by airborne bacteria resulting from farm waste. In addition, "a directive issued in February 2002 instructed USDA staff scientists to seek prior approval before publishing any research or speaking publicly on 'sensitive issues'...."


The administration ignored scientific analysis of Iraq's aluminum tubes that suggested they had nothing to do with uranium enrichment. We know all about <i>that</i>, don't we?


A team of scientists who drew peer-reviewed conclusions about the management of the Missouri River that was at odds with what the Bush administration wanted to hear was swiftly replaced with a "SWAT team" that could be trusted to say what they did want to hear.


A new Bush administration rule on peer-review would essentially require that all government research be vetted by industry reviewers before it was published. Tobacco research, for example, could not be reviewed by anyone else who received government funding, but only by industry funded "researchers."

The report also talks about the litmus tests that are widely in place for appointment to scientific panels. Rather than picking the best scientists, the White House instead chooses people who are most likely to agree with their own ideol

[Tall_James]

I support Bush in this because she blinded me...with science.

Filthy whore.


<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/tj_sig.jpg>

Why am I always on a plane or a fast train
Oh what a world my parents gave me

[Furtherman]

This does not surprise me at all. It's money vs. nature.

<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

[TooCute]

<a href="http://www.scienceinpolicy.org/">Here is a link outlining some of the Bush administration's transgressions</a>

I just got that link in my mailbox yesterday, coincidence I suppose.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[TheMojoPin]

He's just trying to protect us from those filthy muties!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[MizzleTizzle]

Sadly, this is not new.

The militaries of the world employ perhaps half of the scientists, directly or not, with all the science that the Military says it needs, spy satellites, better planes, bombs, tanks, and anything else related to war technology.

In 'Cosmos' back in the 80, Carl Sagan estimated a $1 trillion a year was being spent on the combined militaries of the world.

This is exactly the same technology that we could travel the stars with, but, we use it to find 'better' ways to kill and spy on people. Not that it's working...

Imagine what we could have done with that money...

We need more pure science, I say.

sigh

http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/trilobite

[JustJon]

He's just trying to protect us from those filthy muties!
Which just goes to show that we need to enforce the Mutant Registration Act.

It's 2004, do you know what your children are?

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/rfjustjon10.gif"><BR><A href="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com">Chaotic Concepts</a>

[TooCute]

<img src="http://www.queergranny.com/images/307magneto.jpg">

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[TheMojoPin]

http://www.mediocreminds.com/version1/images/superhero/m/professor_x.jpg

CHARLIE DON'T SURF.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[keithy_19]

The first thing was from the NY TIMES. Take that with a grain of salt.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/keithybobeefysig.jpg
"Thanks to Katylina-- she can suck the meat off my chicken bone."

[Yerdaddy]

Because?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
<marquee behavior=scroll>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/pythfish.jpgI'm chatty!-----http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/mulletfish.jpg<font color="white"> Nice tailfin. </font>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/pythfish.jpg</marquee>

[keithy_19]

Because it's the NY Times who are very liberal.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/keithybobeefysig.jpg
"Thanks to Katylina-- she can suck the meat off my chicken bone."

[HBox]

So did you read the Ny Times for a while and come to your own opinion on that or did you listen to your conservative overlords and bend to their every whim?

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Yerdaddy]

Because conservatives say it's liberal?

My point is, if you talk to hardcore liberals they'll say the NYT is corporate/conservative dominated. If you talk to conservatives it's liberal dominated. It can't be both. Before you dismiss a source of information, especially "mainstream" stuff, outright, maybe you should look into the merits of the arguments?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
<marquee behavior=scroll>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/pythfish.jpgI'm chatty!-----http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/mulletfish.jpg<font color="white"> Nice tailfin. </font>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/pythfish.jpg</marquee>

[MizzleTizzle]

Well guys, its a science article, meaning one can probably find out about the original research and programs mentioned, and check to see what is happening exactly; irrespective of the reporters or paper's editorial leanings.

I'd say subscribe to Science or Nature, but they're expensive as hell. And not enough pictures of scantily-clad chicks.

Which reminds me, we need more hot women scientists.

http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/trilobite

[Doomstone]

The first thing was from the NY TIMES. Take that with a grain of salt.



Keith, the New York Times article describes the report done by the Union of Concerned Scientists. At the end of my post, I linked DIRECTLY to the actual report. Here's an idea - read the report, then read the Times article, and tell me where exactly the New York Times was incorrect or biased in their article. You know, back up your argument instead of parroting bullshit you heard on the radio about some imaginary liburalmediabias.

Or do you even know what the word "liberal" means?

<center><b><font size=8 color=black>THIS SPACE FOR RENT</b></font></center>

[42nd-delay]

Here's a less liberal source - the Pentagon:

Leaked Pentagon report warns climate change may bring famine, war: report (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=1&u=/afp/britain_us_environment)

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

[Dudeman]

anyone who agrees that "The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad" should not vote for Nader. This work by the Bush administration is enough to differentiate the dem's and rep's, and therefore Nader's assertion that dems and reps are the same is wrong. Voting for Nader instead of the dem representative is a waste.


-the dude is online-

[Dudeman]

"President Bush yesterday dismissed two members of his
handpicked Council on Bioethics -- a scientist and a moral
philosopher who had been among the more outspoken
advocates for research on human embryo cells.

In their places he appointed three new members, including a
doctor who has called for more religion in public life, a political
scientist who has spoken out precisely against the research that
the dismissed members supported, and another who has written
about the immorality of abortion and the "threats of
biotechnology." " - Washington Post



Whether you agree with Bush's opinions on stem cell research,
etc., that's fucked up to replace that people on the committee
that disagree with your position. What's the purpose of having
the committee, other than to help find the data/ or the phrasing
of an argument that will just bolster you previous opinion?


-the dude is online-

This message was edited by Dudeman on 3-1-04 @ 10:37 PM

[UnknownPD]

I find it funny that you guys act like this stuff started with the Bush Administration. During Carter scientists were supposedly prevented from telling the truth about Three Mile Island. Reagen stifled the truth about aids. Clinton hid facts about global warming. And his administrations report on roswell was soundly booed by those who do not want to hear the truth.
The scientists of the Union of Concerned Scientists are usually funded by the govt and they always piss and moan when their particular idea or theory is not pursued. Its never because of bad science but because of some massive government conspiracy

[TooCute]

they always piss and moan when their particular idea or theory is not pursued. Its never because of bad science but because of some massive government conspiracy

Then I guess it's just coincidence that whenever there's a republican in the white house science goe bad.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[Doomstone]

I find it funny that you guys act like this stuff started with the Bush Administration.


I find it funny that you couldn't be bothered to read the fucking post. From the NYT article I quoted:



"<b>Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front</b>," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."


I wonder what they mean when they say "other administrations?" Of course, you're using another version of the "all politicians lie" excuse, which is as intellectually honest as a defense attorney arguing that his client shouldn't be convicted of murder because "it's not like he's the first person to kill."



The scientists of the Union of Concerned Scientists are usually funded by the govt and they always piss and moan when their particular idea or theory is not pursued. Its never because of bad science but because of some massive government conspiracy


You have no idea about the members of the Union of Concerned Scientists - these are many of the finest, most accomplished scientists living today. Around two dozen Nobel Laurates are affiliated with the organization, leaders in every discipline - conceptual physics, particle physics, neuroscience, molecular biology, genetics, climatology, evolutionary biology, virology - the very best of the best. Another two dozen National Medal of Science winners, our national treasures of science and technological progress, plus a handful of world-renowned scientific geniuses who have won both awards. You can't dismiss their collective credibility with a torrent of political bullshit. Bad science my ass!

[Doomstone]

Also, from the actual report (which I'm sure you didn't bother reading either):



No administration has been above inserting
politics into science from time to time. However,
a considerable number of individuals who have
served in positions directly involved in the federal
government's use of scientifi c knowledge and expertise
have asserted that the Bush administration is,
to an unprecedented degree, distorting and manipulating
the science meant to assist the formation
and implementation of policy. The following are
accounts from a number of authoritative sources
including political appointees from past Republican
administrations, senior science advisors who have
served both Republican and Democratic administrations,
and long-term civil servants from federal
agencies.
DISSEMINATING RESEARCH
FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES
William Ruckelshaus, the fi rst EPA administrator
under President Nixon, and his successor,
Russell Train, have spoken out about the matter.
Specifi cally, Ruckelshaus told the press, "Is the
analysis fl awed? That is a legitimate reason for not
releasing [a science-based analysis]. But if you don't
like the outcome that might result from the analysis,
that is not a legitimate reason."1 Train commented,
"My sense is that, from the beginning of the Bush
administration, the White House has constantly
injected itself into the way the EPA approaches and
decides the critical issues before it. The agency has
had little or no independence. I think that is a very
great mistake, and one for which the American
people could pay over the long run in compromised
health and reduced quality of life."2
Scientifi c advisors to government also weigh
in on this matter. Dr. Wolfgang H.K. Panofsky,
a distinguished physicist who worked on the
Manhattan Project and served on the Presidential
Scientifi c Advisory Committee and in other highlevel
scientifi c advisory roles in the Eisenhower,
Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations,
states that the current administration has isolated
itself from independent scientifi c advice to an
unprecedented degree.3 Dr. Marvin Goldberger,
a former president of the California Institute of
Technology who has advised both Republican and
Democratic administrations on nuclear weapons.issues, compares the attitude of this administration
to those he has served by stating, "Politics plays
no role in scientists' search for understanding and
applications of the laws of nature. To ignore or
marginalize scientifi c input to policy decisions, where
relevant, on the basis of politics is to endanger our
national economic and military security."4
According to Dr. Margaret Scarlett, a former
CDC staff member who served in the agency for
15 years, most recently in the Offi ce of HIV/AIDS
Policy, "The current administration has instituted
an unheard-of level of micromanagement in the
programmatic and scientifi c activities of CDC.
We're seeing a clear substitution of ideology for
science and it is causing many committed scientists
to leave the agency."5 Scarlett also points out that,
"Ronald Reagan was very uncomfortable with the
issue of sex education and the transmission of HIV,
which was still largely stigmatized at the time.
Nonetheless, with the help of CDC, his administration
got factual information out to every household
in the country about the problem. His actions
stand in dramatic contrast to the sorry record of
the current administration on informing the public
about issues related to sex education and HIV
transmission."6


From <b>Part III: An Unprecedented Pattern Of Behavior</b> which begins on page 26.

[TooCute]

After reading their website, I decided to become a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

AND I'm going to get a handy dandy tote bag. I'm such a sucker for free stuff!

<img src="http://www.ucsusa.org/images/totebagsmall.jpg">

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[high fly]

I can't make up my mind until I've heard from Leonard Nimoy on the subject.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[Furtherman]

Researchers Say U.S. Barred Them From Cuba (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/09/health/09COMA.html?ex=1079413200&en=a5814b4573338b59&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

U.S. Revokes Academics' OK For Cuba Trip (http://news.tbo.com/news/MGAU7M8ELRD.html)

<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah! Stick it to Cuba!

They're, like, scary and stuff!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

Pronounced, "KOO-buh."

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

This message was edited by high fly on 3-13-04 @ 2:13 PM

[A.J.]

Or "Cuber".

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/John%20F%20Kennedy.jpg

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[TheMojoPin]

*Article is second on the page in link, so scroll down*

Letter from concerned scientists not exactly scrupulous in its facts (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/8155748.htm)

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[TheMojoPin]

From SpinSanity.com (Article doesn't have it's own seperate link):

Thompson's stem cell spin multiplies (8/30)
By Brendan Nyhan

The Bush administration continues to try to spin the debate over federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a pattern that dates back to the President's first speech on the issue, as we show in our book.

In a recent USA Today op-ed, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson suggested that stem cell lines are more widely available to researchers in the US than anywhere else in the world:

Most of the established US scientists in this field have received funding, and shipments of stem-cell lines are going out to researchers in record numbers. More lines are available in the USA than in any other country.
Thompson's first sentence concerns the availability of embryonic stem cell lines and funding to American researchers. Thus, when read in context, the claim that "[m]ore lines are available in the USA than in any other country" implies that scientists here have access to more lines than those in other countries.

This is misleading. Though it may be technically true that more lines are offered by laboratories based in the US than those in any other single country, the embryonic stem cell debate concerns the number of lines that American scientists can use in federally funded research, not the geographic location of those lines. Contrary to Thompson's spin, President Bush's policy restricting federal funding to lines created before August 9, 2001 means that far more lines are "available" to government-funded researchers in many other countries than in the US (similarly, privately funded researchers in the US have access to a wider array of lines). As Gareth Cook wrote in the Boston Globe in May:

[T]oday there are only 19 usable lines created before [August 9, 2001], and that number is never likely to rise above 23, according to the National Institutes of Health. However, the number of cell lines available to the world's researchers, but off-limits to US government-funded researchers, is now much higher: at least 51, according to the survey. It could rise to more than 100 over the coming year.
(Note: The lines currently available to federally-funded researchers from the NIH registry is 22.)

This strategy is reminiscent of the Bush administration's sleight-of-hand when initially announcing its policy on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. In his August 9, 2001 speech, Bush said "more than sixty genetically diverse stem cell lines exist" and argued that "we should allow federal funding to be used for research into these existing stem cell lines." However, while more than sixty lines did exist in a technical sense, most of those lines were not available and ready for research, as Bush had implied. Thompson's disingenuous spin is just more of the same.

Arictle can found in its original context with links HERE (Scroll down to the middle of the page). (http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_08_29_archive.html#1093955559618822 )

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Mike Teacher]

Bush said "more than sixty genetically diverse stem cell lines exist" and argued that "we should allow federal funding to be used for research into these existing stem cell lines."


Not even a drop in a bucket.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

[Yerdaddy]

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/science/19poli.html?ei=5094&en=7f7a20f8ae7ab725&hp=&ex=1098244800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=" target="_blank">Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue</a>

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Dudeman]

An editorial from David Baltimore, 1975 Nobel Prize winner in medicine, current president of CalTech, and arguably the greatest living scientist. (This appeared in a recent issue of Science.)



Science and the Bush Administration
David Baltimore*

In various ways, the scientific community in the United States--and in other nations as well--has expressed concern about the way in which decisions about scientific issues have been subjected to political tests by the Bush administration. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), in a statement that I signed along with many others, said in pertinent part: "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions." The UCS and John H. Marburger III, President Bush's science advisor, have continued to trade charge and countercharge. Now a committee of the National Academies is examining some of the issues at stake, including the important matter of criteria for appointing scientists to government posts and advisory committees.

I leave this unfinished debate in those capable hands. But as we approach the election, it is important to examine the most critical issues at the interface of science and politics in the determination of public policy. And on several of these issues, a new pattern of behavior by the administration is becoming clear. The sequence is as follows: A government position is taken on a matter of scientific importance; policy directions are announced and scientific justifications for those policies are offered; strong objections from scientists follow; the scientific rationale is then abandoned or changed, but the policies based on that science remain, stuck in the same place.

U.S. policy with respect to HIV/AIDS is a case in point. The virus is spreading at an alarming rate, devastating Africa and now making horrifying inroads into the teeming continent of Asia. Stopping the spread, especially among the youngest and most productive members of society, should be the highest international priority. With a vaccine far in the future, stemming the tide requires that we educate people to protect themselves; and although abstinence and fidelity prevent exposure to HIV, under most circumstances the only safe and effective protection is condoms.

Initially, the Bush administration gave scant recognition to the protective value of condom use. The Centers for Disease Control Web site (which was once changed to suggest, incorrectly, a possible relation between abortion history and breast cancer) contains a confusing mixture: some emphasis on condom failure rates and a plug for abstinence. Complaints apparently led to the addition of a positive statement about condom effectiveness. The U.S. Agency for International Development now promotes condom use. But the emphasis is on use in selected target populations, although the value of much more widespread use has been demonstrated repeatedly in scientific studies.

Climate change has had a similar history. Repeated administration statements questioned the science behind the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global warming seen in the past 100 years is associated with human activity. Now, at last, comes a statement from an interagency administration committee, signed by cabinet secretaries, confirming the IPCC position. In the policy domain, however, we still have a long-range research program aimed toward a "hydrogen economy," but no commitment to current mitigation of this growing crisis.

As for stem cells, the arbitrary decision to restrict federally supported research to the few cell lines available before the president's statement in 2001 still holds. After sustained criticism from the scientific community, the administration has conceded that the research is valuable. It has made funding available for research but nevertheless maintains the cell line restriction. And it supports legislation that would criminalize resea

[mdr55]

The Big boom theory? We all know God created the world in 7 days.--Bush

Hafa Adai.

[TooCute]

An editorial from David Baltimore, 1975 Nobel Prize winner in medicine, current president of CalTech, and arguably the greatest living scientist. (This appeared in a recent issue of Science.)

Not according to Rockefeller, he wasn't ;)
I kid. Actually, I know him quite well.

I guess that didn't really contribute much but I just felt like sharing.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[Dudeman]

Not according to Rockefeller, he wasn't ;)

actually they kissed and made up:

this year baltimore "became the first Rockefeller University alumnus to receive the Honorary Doctor of Science degree, the university's most distinguished award"


-I'll log off now, and listen to your
response.-

[TooCute]

I don't think we have an actual thread on stem cell research, but I just wanted to point out how California passed its proposition 71, basically pledging $3 billion over the next ten years to stem cell research ($300 million/year).

I was talking to my father about this, and apparently there is a great deal of skepticism about whether or not in the long run this will really be a good thing for stem cell research in general. There is no doubt in the scientific community that stem cell research is important, and will likely prove fruitful in the long run. However, there is a great deal of concern that ten years is simply not enough to see the kind of results that the Caliofornians who passed the proposition are expecting.

California doesn't exactly have the money to spare, but the heads of some of the big stem cell research firms out there (most notable and prominent and outspoken is Irv Weissman, an old family friend of mine for whom I actually worked doing embryonic and hematopoetic stem cell research for about a year after college) have basically convinced californians that by putting California at the forefront of stem cell research (the government is looking at putting maybe $100 million of funding, max (Bush would like to put far, far less into it) into the field, nevermind the crippling limitation of restricting research to the already existing, contaminated, generally non-useful lines of stem cells), the state will reap large financial benefits.

This is really a dubious proposition at best, at least in the short term that the majority of the population who voted for this proposition is likely to view the situation. Ten years is probably not going to be enough to see any significant financial gains from stem cell research, at least to the state. Of course, the research firms are likely to see huge profits - and people will wonder whether or not that's not the reason why people like Irv Weissman have campaigned so hard for the propostion. They have such a personal interest in this; the backlash could very well be huge - "Look at all the money we put into this, and it yielded nothing". The fact of the matter is that most people simply don't understand that research can take a long time to bear results. Not everything is as serendipitous as the discovery of penecillin.

In and of itself, the money can't be bad. The backlash could very well be, but I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

In other news, I just want to reiterate the sentiment in this thread's topic. I guess I just sort of have this on my mind since I had dinner with my dad two nights ago, and he was a bit loaded, and going on and on and on about how terrible republican administrations - and Bush in particular - are for science. How things were great under Clinton, and terrible under W (mostly I gathered this when he gave Clinton a big, drunken thumbs out and blew a raspberry at W) as far as funding for research goes. He ranted for quite a while about how W appointed his father's urologist as the head of the national cancer institute (a research organization). He might be a perfectly good doctor, but apparently he really really sucks as far as supporting cancer research goes. Or perhaps we can consider the appointment a couple of years ago of vehemently pro-life David Hager as head of the FDA's committee on reproductive health (this only in my mind because I got another forwarded email about that today. I get so many forwarded warning! read this! emails about the dangers of ingesting lipstick and other crap, but this is one of the few that was actually legitimate, though perhaps a bit late). It depresses me to even think of the environment.

anyhow, that's about it for now.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[furie]

Have we forgotten the Messenger Probe? (http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/)


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/yojimbo.jpg">

<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[Furtherman]

Yes, the Messenger probe is an excellent example of NASA, but not of Bush and his views on science.

As TooCute mentioned, it is people like Dr. David Hager who Bush will appoint to important positions in the government.

David Hager campaigned the FDA to withdrawal their approval of the morning after pill. He also writes books that say a good cure for ills would be prayer and reading scripture.

Now, he may be a good doctor, but I don't want important decision makers in my government that believe reading a book can help heal you. I'd much rather have a person who is intrigued by actual physical medicines that will help cure. Even possible medicines that should be researched.

<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

[torker]

ingesting lipstick


now I'm starving

<IMG SRC=http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/users/41855e91zfa5977f1/torker131313/__sr_/aeed.jpg?pfUPujBBAP1XJWm7>
Pangaean-American

[Furtherman]

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?ex=1118376000&en=b373c9ff87f04917&ei=5070&hp" target="_blank">Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts</a></p><p>&quot;The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.</p><p>The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations.</p><p>Together, the two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.&quot;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Every day I see more and more instances where this administration will be viewed as one of the worst we've ever endured.&nbsp; </p><p><a href="http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050608061909990012&_ccc=3&cid=842" target="_blank">Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Links to Global Warming</a></p><p>Yet&nbsp;a little hope of common sense shines through:</p><p><a href="http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050607165509990025" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2">Approval Rating Dives</font></strong> <br />For the first time, a majority of Americans say the president has done more to divide the country than unite it. A majority also say the Iraq war has failed to improve U.S. security.</a></p>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Furtherman/furtherblur.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

[Sir Okonkwo]

<p>Seriously, how can anyone support these fuckers?&nbsp; If I see someone running at me with a chainsaw&nbsp;to my face, I'm doing anything and everything to stop them.</p><p>Dubya is a chainsaw to the entire country.</p>

[Knowledged_one]

<p>You mean support at least according to Howard Dean Chairperson for the DNC these &quot;pretty much&nbsp;white Christian group&quot;</p><p>Yeah the other side sure has a grip on what's going on</p>

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/aggie2323/celticssig.jpg">
Kicking it old school on the board again

[Furtherman]

<p>The other side isn't in charge right now.&nbsp; It's who IS in charge that's the problem.&nbsp; </p><p>This isn't a Republican/Democratic problem.&nbsp; It's a human problem.&nbsp; Specifically, the men surrounding the human who is in charge of the US right now.&nbsp; Try not to see it as an attack against Republicans.&nbsp; It's an insult to us all.</p>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Furtherman/furtherblur.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

[Knowledged_one]

Furtherman, what i put was in response to the guy below you, i can take any criticism of my points and will read anyone elses opinion but to blindly state what he did is the problem.

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/aggie2323/celticssig.jpg">
Kicking it old school on the board again

[Furtherman]

<p>I see.&nbsp; </p><p>Even though his chainsaw metaphor is an accurate depiction. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" /></p>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Furtherman/furtherblur.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

[Knowledged_one]

<p>And to spread a little more light - if we are going to start blaming Bush then Mother Nature also plays a roll in producing some of the harmful things to our environment for instance:</p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">Ash column generated by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines Luzon volcanic arc, on June 12, 1991. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo occurred three days later on June 15, 1991, and was one of the largest eruptions of this century. The climactic event lasted about 9 hours and erupted over a cubic mile of rock material. It injected a 20- million ton sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere to an altitude of more than 20 miles. The climactic Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere this century, although smaller than the estimated disturbances from the eruptions of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatau in 1883. Sulfate aerosol formed in the stratosphere from sulfur dioxide in the Pinatubo cloud increased the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space. Consequently, the Earth's surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of the effect. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from man-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led to the lowest ozone levels ever recorded to date in the stratosphere. </font><br /></p><p>The volcanic eruption above released more CO2 into the air then was ever produced during the entire 19th century.&nbsp; Who do we blame that on.&nbsp; </p><p>And this isn't as Furtherman said a Republican/Democrat thing this is a people thing.&nbsp; The Kyoto treaty was drafted in 1997 and we havent' signed that even though it is now gone through (2) different presidencies.&nbsp; Also we have to realize at some point that other sources of power are not that likely to take effect:&nbsp; Fuel Cells still a long way off, using hydrogen plants is not likely enough because of the lack of plants to produce the hydrogen,hybrid cars are getting things better and Bush's mandate about American Car makers and new limits for avg. MPG that is supposed to take effect is just not likely to happen.&nbsp; The reason is that we cant develop alot of things because of natural laws we haven't found our way around.&nbsp; For instance the best efficiency you can get from an internal combustion engine is roughly 58% meaning its 42% inefficient.&nbsp; </p>

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/aggie2323/celticssig.jpg">
Kicking it old school on the board again

[zentraed]

<p>Heard the author of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html">today's ny times piece</a>
on NPR talking about this issue. The way I see it, the government has a
responsibility to promote responsible business practices, the PRESS has
the responsibility to promote responsible government, and we the
citizens have to demand a vigilant and thorough press that's not afraid
to &quot;bore&quot; us with important information every now and then.</p>
<p>A fine example of how we are failing ourselves: three and a half
years after 9/11 and CNN announces they're going to start offering 1
hour of international news coverage a day. The American people sign off
on billions of foreign expenditures every year and after being attacked
by foreign terrorists still don't demand to know more about the rest of
the world. And no, &quot;a bomb went off in Israel/Palestine/Iraq&quot; IS NOT
NEWS!<br />
</p>
<p>Our policy makers can't make responsible policy decisions without
the truth, and we can't judge those decisions if we don't have all the
facts ourselves.<br />
</p>

[Furtherman]

<p>&quot;And this isn't as Furtherman said a Republican/Democrat thing this is a people thing.&quot;</p><p>Knowleged One, I did not say this is a Republican/Democrat thing.&nbsp; What I said was:</p><p>&quot;This isn't a Republican/Democratic problem.&nbsp; It's a human problem.&quot;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Furtherman/furtherblur.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

[Knowledged_one]

My bad, not trying to impune you or your words.&nbsp; Just trying to remember the exact words as i started typing.&nbsp; Same jist though don't you think

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/aggie2323/celticssig.jpg">
Kicking it old school on the board again

[Furtherman]

<p><img height="174" src="http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/SGE.FDV70.290106084340.photo00.quicklook.default-245x174.jpg" width="245" border="0" /></p><p>Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... everything is alright.</p><p><span><a href="http://physorg.com/news10349.html" target="_self">NASA climate expert says US tried to silence him</a></span></p><p>NASA's top climate scientist has accused the Bush administration of trying to stop him from speaking out after he called in a lecture for swift cuts in emissions of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming. </p><p></p><p><span>When he's speaking to you tonight on the state of the union, please be aware that for a whole lotta that speech, he'll be talking out his ass.</span></p><p><span>Just last week on the CBS Evening News, Bob Scheiffer interviewed Bush and he said that he wants to see different types of cars on the road that don't rely on the middle east's oil.&nbsp; Yet he hasn't put forth one initiative to do so.&nbsp; He lied right to cameras.&nbsp; Again.&nbsp;</span></p>

<img src=http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7>

[Bulldogcakes]

<p><span>Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at
NASA, denied to the Times that there was any effort to silence Hansen.
<br />
<br />&quot;That's not the way we operate here at NASA,&quot; Acosta said. &quot;We promote openness and we speak with the facts.&quot;
<br />
<br />Acosta said that government scientists were free to discuss
scientific findings but that policy statements should be left to policy
makers and appointed spokesmen.
<br />
<br />&quot;This is not about any individual or any issue like <a href="http://physorg.com/news10349.html#" target="_blank">global warming</a>,&quot; he told the Times. &quot;It's about coordination.&quot;
<br />
<br />&quot;Since 1988, (Hansen) has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by <a href="http://physorg.com/news10349.html#" target="_blank">carbon dioxide</a>,
that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil
fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in
various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush
administration and Vice President Al Gore,&quot; the Times reported.</span></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So asking someone to follow protocol is an &quot;effort to silence him&quot;? </p><p>Sounds like he forgot his meds this morning to me. &nbsp;</p>

http://www.silentpix.com/hottub/bulldogsig/rotate.php

<A HREF=http://bulldogcakes.tripod.com/>My site Bully Baby</A>

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." - Anon

[booster11373]

<p>some more NASA news, from a Bush appointee</p><p><strong>The Big Bang is &ldquo;not proven fact; it is opinion,&rdquo; Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, &ldquo;It is not NASA&rsquo;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.&rdquo;</strong></p><p>Mr Deutsch&nbsp; had this position as NASA public relations specialist given to him by the current administration</p><p><a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/02/04/outrage-at-attacks-on-nasa-science/" target="_self">http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/02/04/outrage-at-attacks-on-nasa-science/</a></p>

People like to kill Germans

Germans like to kill People

[Yerdaddy]

<p>Jim Hansen, the NASA scientist above, has a <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131" target="_blank">long piece in the New York Review of Books this week</a>.</p><p></p><p>The California legislature has passed a regulation requiring a 30 percent reduction in automobile greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. If adopted nationwide, this regulation would save more than $150 billion annually in oil imports. In thirty-five years it would save seven times the amount of oil estimated by the US Geological Services to exist in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. By fighting it in court, automakers and the Bush administra-tion have stymied the California law, which many other states stand ready to adopt. Further reductions of emissions would be possible by means of technologies now being developed. For example, new hybrid cars with larger batteries and the ability to plug into wall outlets will soon be available; and cars whose bodies are made of a lightweight carbon composite would get better mileage.</p>

[Yerdaddy]

White House orders Martin Scorsese and Willem Dafoe arrested for "insultin' Baby Jeezus". (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/washington/20stem.html?adxnnl=1&ref=science&adxnnlx=1182346834-5w7eMU4BOa9C+EKeR/9lig)

[Jujubees2]

White House orders Martin Scorsese and Willem Dafoe arrested for "insultin' Baby Jeezus". (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/washington/20stem.html?adxnnl=1&ref=science&adxnnlx=1182346834-5w7eMU4BOa9C+EKeR/9lig)

I just love the hypocrisy of the Bush White House that "American taxpayers shouldn't fund the destruction of human life." Then you know what GWB? Stop spending my tax dollars to kill innocent Iraqis!

[fohat]

Do you own a license for that beaker?? (http://memepunks.blogspot.com/2006/06/americas-war-on-science.html?dupe=with_honor)

memememememeemeeme (http://jerhad.typepad.com/jerhad/images/beaker.jpg)

[scottinnj]

So then reading all of the arguments here....I have come to the conclusion that President Bush's veto today was a good thing. Keeps politics and politicians out of science. If stem cell research is good, fine. Do it with private funds. Same thing with global warming. If everyone agrees that global warming is done by man, then we can fix it without government help.

I'm just waiting for gas to get to 5 bucks a gallon so Expeditions and Suburbans disappear from our roads forever, we finally wise up as consumers and quit driving 100 miles a day to buy groceries and use the power of the demand in the supply/demand equation. Then, and only then, will ethanol get put into the mainstream and our dependence on OPEC will go away. I don't understand everything about global warming, and I tend to believe the science, but I don't believe that our government will do anything effective about it. This is the government that brought you
The Susan B Anthony Dollar
Amtrak
The Space Shuttle
Medicare
Homeland Security
The FAA
The Department of Education
Social Security
and my personal fav-
The IRS
Do you really, really want to trust the government to fix Global Warming? It may play a role, but to think it will be the primary problem solver-I just don't think it will.

[HBox]

So then reading all of the arguments here....I have come to the conclusion that President Bush's veto today was a good thing. Keeps politics and politicians out of science. If stem cell research is good, fine. Do it with private funds.

No offense, but that statement is completely ignorant of how medical research is done in this country. What this policy means is that not only can't federal funds be used for stem cell research, any facility that uses federal funds can't do stem cell research anywhere on their premises. They'd have to construct new facilities that would essentially be used solely for stem cell research.

Now you might say "The government shouldn't even be in any research in the first place." But it's what drives most new research in this country. It's what gives more obscure diseases more research attention.

Pharmaceutical companies are only concerned with what's profitable to them. That's obvious. But how does that manifest itself in a negative way? It results in 5 different boner pills. It results in 17 different cholesterol drugs. It results in 20 different allergy drugs. Lots of drugs that cost shit loads of money to develop. Drugs that are essentially redundant, that all treat the same thing. And then when the patent runs out on one of those drugs, they develop a new, slightly different drug so that when the generics come out it doesn't cut into their profits.

And why would a company pursue a stem cell cure for a disease like diabetes when they make so much money from treating it now? They'd lose all the income for test strips, needles, blood sugar meters, insulin, etc.

The bottom line is that pharmaceutical company's financial interests do not always line up with the nation's health interests. If research was left completely to them horrible, debilitating diseases with relatively few sufferers will be ignored. And the companies will continue to pour most of their resources into recycling their own drugs.

[scottinnj]

No offense, but that statement is completely ignorant of how medical research is done in this country. What this policy means is that not only can't federal funds be used for stem cell research, any facility that uses federal funds can't do stem cell research anywhere on their premises. They'd have to construct new facilities that would essentially be used solely for stem cell research.

None taken, but that gets me back to my point. It's not illegal to do stem cell research, and if enough believers ponied up the bucks, it can be done. I was talking about global warming and solving it, but it can sort of apply here.

Now you might say "The government shouldn't even be in any research in the first place." But it's what drives most new research in this country. It's what gives more obscure diseases more research attention.

Not necessarily true. Politicians funnel tax money to the hip diseases...breast cancer, AIDS diabetes and so on. That way they can go back to their districts and say Vote for me I care about women, look at all the money I get allocated for breast cancer. Vote for me I care about the homosexuals in my district, look at all the AIDS research I brought. Vote for me I care about the elderly, look at all the diabetes funding I got put into the bill.

Pharmaceutical companies are only concerned with what's profitable to them. That's obvious. But how does that manifest itself in a negative way? It results in 5 different boner pills. It results in 17 different cholesterol drugs. It results in 20 different allergy drugs. Lots of drugs that cost shit loads of money to develop. Drugs that are essentially redundant, that all treat the same thing. And then when the patent runs out on one of those drugs, they develop a new, slightly different drug so that when the generics come out it doesn't cut into their profits.
Well, that's just competition. It's not like its all coming from One omnipotent company. These are coming from all over the world, including companies based in countries that have universal health coverage. You shouldn't be mad at the fact that there are 5 different boner pills. What you SHOULD be mad at is that MEDICARE pays for them while not paying for birth control pills.

And why would a company pursue a stem cell cure for a disease like diabetes when they make so much money from treating it now? They'd lose all the income for test strips, needles, blood sugar meters, insulin, etc.

I just don't buy that, and remember it was a group of universities and Merk that came up with the HPV Vaccine recently (the one that helps prevent cervical cancer) So to say that pharmaceutical companies aren't interested in cures and only interested in treatments is a great Chris Rock line, but it just doesn't hold up.

The bottom line is that pharmaceutical company's financial interests do not always line up with the nation's health interests. If research was left completely to them horrible, debilitating diseases with relatively few sufferers will be ignored. And the companies will continue to pour most of their resources into recycling their own drugs.
I'm not going to completely disagree with that. Remember I said there is a role for the federal government, I just don't think it should be the leader in this type of research. Things that are run by the government tend to move slower then in the private sector.

[HBox]

Well, that's just competition. It's not like its all coming from One omnipotent company. These are coming from all over the world, including companies based in countries that have universal health coverage. You shouldn't be mad at the fact that there are 5 different boner pills. What you SHOULD be mad at is that MEDICARE pays for them while not paying for birth control pills.

Well, the biggest problem comes when a pharmaceutical company almost competes with itself. When a company has a drug that has a lapsing patent it will simply develop a drug that does the same thing. often it's just a different formulation of the existing drug. When the generics come out they market the hell out of the new drug. And all of a sudden everyone's on the new drug without any available generics, everyone continues to pay out the ass for it and the company still rakes in the money.

It's actually useful to a point. Having not just one option to treat a condition is good. People suffer sometimes severe side effects from some drugs. But it goes too far and the companies spend tons of money to treat something that is already treated. It's only positive influence is to the companies bottom line.

Having alternative research funding available from the government is extremely helpful. Which brings me to this:

It's not illegal to do stem cell research, and if enough believers ponied up the bucks, it can be done. I was talking about global warming and solving it, but it can sort of apply here.

But you are handicapping some of the most promising research. It's taking time to circumvent the negative effects of the federal funding ban. States are taking the initiative. But all that time that it's taking is costing lives down the line if some this research bears out.

As far as global warming, you're right, the only way anything will change is by oil prices rising. The problem could be that if oil prices raise too high too fast. That could be a catastrophe. So we should be funding some research in the meantime.

I just don't buy that, and remember it was a group of universities and Merk that came up with the HPV Vaccine recently (the one that helps prevent cervical cancer) So to say that pharmaceutical companies aren't interested in cures and only interested in treatments is a great Chris Rock line, but it just doesn't hold up.

Cancer is a different situation than any other disease. It's current treatment is generally so horrible that some people decline it outright. I was talking more about disease that are considered chronic conditions that require constant treatment. There isn't going to be much motivation to lose all that revenue. And with all the frequent consolidation of companies competition is not as vibrant as it should be.

[Snacks]

[QUOTE=scottinnj;1363196]None taken, but that gets me back to my point. It's not illegal to do stem cell research, and if enough believers ponied up the bucks, it can be done. I was talking about global warming and solving it, but it can sort of apply here.

If your going to think like that with science that can help people, then why not think that way about the war? Most people feel the war is a waste of money and feel we should be out, but we still pay for it. Let Bush and all his buddies pony up and pay for the war. It wont happen b/c govt isnt run that way. He has vetoed this bill based on his religious beliefs not on science or what the people want. Majority of this country wants some form of stem cell research but Bush is using his religion to decide whats right for all Americans and thats wrong.

[scottinnj]

Majority of this country wants some form of stem cell research.

Including me. I just have a bad feeling about EMBRYONIC stem cell research. And a lot of other Americans do as well.

But you do make a point about where tax dollars go. Which is why AGAIN we should put government in the back seat on this. You like Embryonic Stem Cell research, others don't. To call them religious nuts is just demeaning anyway. And one day you're going to be pissed off that the disease you care about is not getting as much taxpayer money as the one you don't care about, then you'll complain about that too, while the people who care about the other disease will call you names and say you are against people getting cured of whatever it is you are complaining about.

[empulse]

http://whowantscake.org/images/jesusdino2.jpg

Cures can't be left to corporations. There is NO profit in a cure, therefore there is NO motivation to to create one. HPV? That vaccine was not about stopping cancer, it was about try to stop the spread of genital warts, thats what HPV is. Someone in the pharma industry doesn't want their new shinny boner getting all fucked up with dick bumps. Get the goddamn religion outta our politics. I throw up in my mouth a little when someone wants to legislate morality.

[Midkiff]

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/flashingbushpm0.gif

[Yerdaddy]

http://whowantscake.org/images/jesusdino2.jpg


Good picture.

"That vaccine was not about stopping cancer, it was about try to stop the spread of genital warts, thats what HPV is."
I'ts not about A, it's about B, and A and B are the same. Therefore, it's about A.

In the big picture I have mixed feelings about this. I know European and Asian governments are funding their own pharmaceutical companies to the tune of billions of dollars because of the promise of multiple times the investment in drugs and money stem cells promise in the future. All we're doing by denying our industries is letting other countries' industries get out in front of ours. Overall it will slow down the race to develop the technologies into useful purposes a little bit. But at the same time I think our industries are, like HBox says, less interested in healing and more interested in profits and we have the most liberal medical industry in the developed world. I think that's a bad thing because medicine does not function like a healthy free market. That would entail industry basing it's products on the choices of consumers. But medicine has 1. a middle man - doctors involved in making the consumer's decisions, 2. patent laws that, like he says, can be exploited to keep competition shut out of a market for generations of patent periods, and 3. death and suffering as middle men precluding the consumer's decisions - "buy this drug or die a miserable death". This is why the drug I was paying the American market price of $120 for cost me only $30 at the British market price - because Britain intervenes to level the playing field for the consumer.

What this means, I believe, is that if the UK is going to be leading the research in this promising field, there will be more responsible oversight guiding the research towards public health interests rather than the profit margin interests of the companies. It's not going to be perfect by a long shot, but in the captive market of medicine it is a necessary intervention and better than our system based on the fantasy of a "free market".

As a further example, (that I can't back up with the documents becuase they're in storage in Bangkok), when I was writing about polio in Yemen I came across medical journal reports of serious vaccine shortages in the US of major childhood vaccines like polio and TB. The reason, according to the experts was that the small drug companies that used to produce vaccines exclusively were being bought up by big companies and their facilities being used to make more profitable drugs like the ones that give Bob Dole wood. (These were also the companies who supplied vaccination programs in the Third World and the smaller Eurpoean and Asian companies couldn't keep up with the demand. There were also a couple of drugs for diseases that the US doesn't have anymore, like Malaria, that had shortages because the US companies owned the patents but didn't produce the drugs because the implimenting agencies, like UNICEF and the World Health Organization couldn't pay the prices to make them worth more than a boner for Bob Dole.) But the fact that American children were being put at risk of Third World diseases like Polio and TB for the sake of profits should be a big fucking sign that our pharmaceutical industries are doing exactly what HBox says they are - putting profits before people.

So for that reason I do trust other countries to develop these drugs more than our own. And maybe if the Congress and the next White House finally get around to health care reform and the industries are crying for more money to catch up with the others on stem cell research maybe they can use that as leverage to keep the medical industry from killing the reform. Again.

Maybe.

[scottinnj]

http://whowantscake.org/images/jesusdino2.jpg




Now that's just silly anti-Christian propaganda. Everyone with a brain knows the dinosaurs drowned in the Flood.

[scottinnj]

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/flashingbushpm0.gif

Nah, I have to give it to Carter. At least for the Post Industrial Revolution.

[Jujubees2]

Nah, I have to give it to Carter. At least for the Post Industrial Revolution.

Wow, not even close. First of all Carter was only in office for four years. GW will have had eight years to screw things up. Carter won a Nobel Prize. Bush probably can't spell Nobel. Carter was one of the first presidents to tout energy conservation, going as far as to give big tax breaks to people who installed solar panels (the breaks were quickly reversed by President Regan).

Was he a great President? By no means. Was he better than Bush? Absolutely.

[Bulldogcakes]

I'm with H-Box here, Scott. The government is really the only place where you can fund research for potential therapies that are years and years away. Thats where many universities get their grants for these projects, from the feds and the states to a lesser extent. The big drug companies have no interest in pursuing this research, its too expensive for too little gain. There are many startup Biotechs on Wall Street which can raise funds as well, and they play a role, but again thats late stage research thats usually almost ready for market. Or sometimes outright scams. For the truly speculative project, you need federal funds.

[Bulldogcakes]

Originally Posted by scottinnj
Nah, I have to give it to Carter. At least for the Post Industrial Revolution.


Wow, not even close. First of all Carter was only in office for four years. GW will have had eight years to screw things up. Carter won a Nobel Prize. Bush probably can't spell Nobel. Carter was one of the first presidents to tout energy conservation, going as far as to give big tax breaks to people who installed solar panels (the breaks were quickly reversed by President Regan).

Was he a great President? By no means. Was he better than Bush? Absolutely.


Comparing Carter and Bush is like comparing farts. They all stink, but some smell better than others.

[scottinnj]

Wow, not even close. First of all Carter was only in office for four years. GW will have had eight years to screw things up. Carter won a Nobel Prize. Bush probably can't spell Nobel. Carter was one of the first presidents to tout energy conservation, going as far as to give big tax breaks to people who installed solar panels (the breaks were quickly reversed by President Regan).

Was he a great President? By no means. Was he better than Bush? Absolutely.

Arafat got a peace prize too.
We had had enough of Carter, that's why he only did four years.
His touting of energy conservation was price fixing...which helped exasberate the gaslines of the 70s.
Carter sucked ass as a President. I like the guy though. He has done a lot of good after he left office-so don't take my critique of him as a personal attack on him.

[scottinnj]

I'm with H-Box here, Scott. The government is really the only place where you can fund research for potential therapies that are years and years away. Thats where many universities get their grants for these projects, from the feds and the states to a lesser extent. The big drug companies have no interest in pursuing this research, its too expensive for too little gain. There are many startup Biotechs on Wall Street which can raise funds as well, and they play a role, but again thats late stage research thats usually almost ready for market. Or sometimes outright scams. For the truly speculative project, you need federal funds.
Yeah, I know I'm on the losing end of the argument-I personally don't care if the embryonic stem cell research law gets passed anyway. I'm not going to vote for a candidate because they are for or against embryonic stem cell research. I just don't like the idea of government being in charge of our health. But just like every other beauracracy, it will eventually happen, and I'll just have to learn to live with it.

[scottinnj]

<p>Seriously, how can anyone support these fuckers?&nbsp; If I see someone running at me with a chainsaw&nbsp;to my face, I'm doing anything and everything to stop them.</p><p>Dubya is a chainsaw to the entire country.</p>

Calm down. People used to get hysterical about Clinton too. With a little perspective, he wasn't the evil monster we thought he was going to be.

[HBox]

One last point on this: I don't know for sure but I'm pretty sure pharmaceutical companies would actually disagree with you Scott. Why? Because let's say a university develops a drug with funding from the government and some charitable groups. Who's going to manufacture this new drug? The pharmaceutical companies. This isn't an area where these companies are going to make a ton of profit since they will have to share the drug's income with the other parties but it is an essentially no risk source of income for them.

[TheMojoPin]

Calm down. People used to get hysterical about Clinton too. With a little perspective, he wasn't the evil monster we thought he was going to be.

You mean the perspective of as it was happening?

[Yerdaddy]

Now that's just silly anti-Christian propaganda. Everyone with a brain knows the dinosaurs drowned in the Flood.

Yeah but thank God the hookworms were saved! (http://www.book-worm.org/twain-mark/letters/chapter-07.html)

[sailor]

Well, the biggest problem comes when a pharmaceutical company almost competes with itself. When a company has a drug that has a lapsing patent it will simply develop a drug that does the same thing. often it's just a different formulation of the existing drug. When the generics come out they market the hell out of the new drug. And all of a sudden everyone's on the new drug without any available generics, everyone continues to pay out the ass for it and the company still rakes in the money.

i don't see why this is a problem. company makes drug A, then generics of A are allowed to come out and company decides to make possibly better B. now you have the choice of generic for A or premium version of B. yes, there's no generic for B, yet, but what would you propose: that they never should have made B in the first place? like i can get generic loratadine or brand-name claritin d (hell, you can still get brand-name claritin as well). i just don't get your supposition that everyone has to move over to the new brand-name drug.

[fohat]

Science, censored (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/06/19/science-censored.aspx)

[HBox]

i don't see why this is a problem. company makes drug A, then generics of A are allowed to come out and company decides to make possibly better B. now you have the choice of generic for A or premium version of B. yes, there's no generic for B, yet, but what would you propose: that they never should have made B in the first place? like i can get generic loratadine or brand-name claritin d (hell, you can still get brand-name claritin as well). i just don't get your supposition that everyone has to move over to the new brand-name drug.

You are missing my point. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do what they are doing. They are free to do whatever makes them money. However what they are doing is for the benefit of themselves and not of the public health. We can't let them be completely responsible for medical research.

And it is not the smartest allocation of research resources to create drug after drug after drug that does the same exact thing as the on before with only marginal improvements, if that. They are doing this for one simple reason: to maintain their ridiculous profit margins from drugs that are not available when generics are also available. You say people don't have to move over but they do. Pharmaceutical companies would not be doing it if it didn't work. They spend tons of money advertising and wining and dining doctors. And then people and insurance companies pay out the ass for these new drugs where the price does not justify the marginal improvement, if any.

And that's not even discussing how this practice eats up billions of dollars of research money and is aimed only at common, often not life-threatening illnesses. Cholesterol drugs, Viagra, allergy medications, blood pressure medications, etc. And that makes sense because the most lucrative market is healthy (or mostly healthy) people. They have money and there's a shit load of them. Sick people? They don't often have much money and there isn't as many as them. So what profit driven company is going to survive catering to them?

[CaptClown]

Cholesterol is partly what you eat and partly genetics the same with blood pressure(hypertension). Viagra is a heart medication with a nice side-effect.

[RogerPodacter]

Since I work exclusively in the pharmaceutical industry i have to chime in. Pharm companies spend TONS of money on research for a drug in the lab, hundreds of millions sometimes, only to run into a dead ends. Its expensive to research and develop medicine for humans, especially in a country as heavily regulated as the US is. Add on the lawsuits that occur when something goes wrong and people sue, and it hurts the companies even more. These companies need high revenue just to compete in the market place to begin with, so they can take the risks of developing new drugs, then getting FDA approval. Everyone benefits from generics, and everyone benefits from a company trying to enhance/improve their existing patent to compete. no one is forcing people to not buy the generic.

I am concerned that the US will fall behind with stem cell research. I just read an article 2 days ago where scientists are using human genetic material and inserting it into animal eggs, so there are no human embyos being used; 99.9% human and 0.1% animal genome, i believe. I believe that if its profitable, these big pharma companies are researching as we speak to make money. hopefully...

[HBox]

The Republican Party approves language in their party platform calling for ban on ALL stem cell research, public or private. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjM0MGNmZjY2NGIyYzYzMjhmMzI0MGRmODZlZmM5ZDA=)

Depressing but not surprising.

[A.J.]

The Republican Party approves language in their party platform calling for ban on ALL stem cell research, public or private. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjM0MGNmZjY2NGIyYzYzMjhmMzI0MGRmODZlZmM5ZDA=)

Depressing but not surprising.

That's God's Own Party for ye!

[NewYorkDragons80]

The Republican Party approves language in their party platform calling for ban on ALL stem cell research, public or private. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjM0MGNmZjY2NGIyYzYzMjhmMzI0MGRmODZlZmM5ZDA=)

Depressing but not surprising.
This is McCain's convention with McCain's delegates. i really don't expect it to pass.

[HBox]

This is McCain's convention with McCain's delegates. i really don't expect it to pass.

I was under the impression it was already done. Good. There is hope yet.

[Furtherman]

Here's to the future!!

Strong indications are that President-elect Barack Obama has picked physicist John Holdren to be the president's science adviser. (http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2008/12/sources-john-ho.html)

A top adviser to the Obama campaign and international expert on energy and climate, Holdren would bolster Obama's team in those areas. Both are crowded portfolios. Obama has already created a new position to coordinate energy issues in the White House staffed by well-connected Carol Browner, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and nominated a Nobel-prize winning physicist, Steve Chu, to head the Department of Energy.

[K.C.]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hb2YSAVHmIE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hb2YSAVHmIE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[cougarjake13]

Here's to the future!!

Strong indications are that President-elect Barack Obama has picked physicist John Holdren to be the president's science adviser. (http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2008/12/sources-john-ho.html)




didnt know that such a position existed

[TooLowBrow]

A top adviser to the Obama campaign and international expert on energy and climate, Holdren would bolster Obama's team in those areas. Both are crowded portfolios. Obama has already created a new position to coordinate energy issues in the White House staffed by well-connected Carol Browner, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and nominated a Nobel-prize winning physicist, Steve Chu, to head the Department of Energy.
BIGGER government BIGGER government!!

[A.J.]

Here's to the future!!

Strong indications are that President-elect Barack Obama has picked physicist John Holdren to be the president's science adviser. (http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2008/12/sources-john-ho.html)

I would have chosen a Vulcan for that position.

[Furtherman]

Maybe I'll rename this thread to the Republican's War Against Science.

Some double faceplam news coming out about who is in charge now.

Holy shit.


A Republican seeking to chair the House Energy committee explains why devastating climate is impossible (http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2010/11/09/john_shimkus_god_and_noah)

Back in March 2009, when Nancy Pelosi ruled the House of Representatives with an iron fist, one could chuckle at Republicans who came to committee hearings quoting scripture as the rationale for their positions on energy policy.

Shimkus continues: "I believe that is the infallible word of god, and that's the way it is going to be for his creation... The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood."

Energy and science in America are in big, big trouble (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/11/10/energy-and-science-in-america-are-in-big-big-trouble/)

With the elections last week, the Republicans took over the House once again. The list of things this means is long and troubling, but the most troubling to me come in the forms of two Texas far-right Republicans: Congressmen Ralph Hall and Joe Barton.

[Earlshog]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/gov_christie_says_hes_skeptica.html


Gov. Chris Christie says he's skeptical that humans are responsible for global warming.


I loved this first comment

He must be running for president if he's already dumbing himself down to please the base. Next, he'll deny evolution.

[foodcourtdruide]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/gov_christie_says_hes_skeptica.html


Gov. Chris Christie says he's skeptical that humans are responsible for global warming.


I loved this first comment

He must be running for president if he's already dumbing himself down to please the base. Next, he'll deny evolution.

It's ok. I'm sure the democrats are ready to respond with some fierce retort that will cripple the republicans base and their absurd clai......... wait, just found out a poll came out saying 43% of Americans find Gov. Chritie's "favorable" or "slightly favorable". Nevermind, the democrats will now not talk about the issue for the next 4 years until it's time to fire up their base again.

[Zorro]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/gov_christie_says_hes_skeptica.html


Gov. Chris Christie says he's skeptical that humans are responsible for global warming.





yeah, cause questionin orthodoxy is never a good thing. Eugenics forever !

[Earlshog]

yeah, cause questionin orthodoxy is never a good thing. Eugenics forever !

He didn't say he was questioning global warming, he said he was skeptical about global warming.

[Zorro]

He didn't say he was questioning global warming, he said he was skeptical about global warming.

skep·ti·cal   /ˈskɛptɪkəl/ Show Spelled
[skep-ti-kuhl] Show IPA

–adjective
1. inclined to skepticism; having doubt: a skeptical young woman.
2. showing doubt: a skeptical smile.
3. denying or questioning the tenets of a religion: a skeptical approach to the nature of miracles.
4. ( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to Skeptics or Skepticism.


Difference without distinction

[hanso]

Maybe I'll rename this thread to the Republican's War Against Science.

Some double faceplam news coming out about who is in charge now.

Holy shit.


A Republican seeking to chair the House Energy committee explains why devastating climate is impossible (http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2010/11/09/john_shimkus_god_and_noah)



Energy and science in America are in big, big trouble (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/11/10/energy-and-science-in-america-are-in-big-big-trouble/)


Joe barton was the one who said sorry for having to pay up. To BP over the oil in the gulf. Bet he among others like him would be happy to see gas at 3$ a gallon. He is obviously on the take.

[Dudeman]

yeah, cause questionin orthodoxy is never a good thing. Eugenics forever !

if he were questioning it because he really wants to keeps the science honest or because he actually has contrary information, that would be one thing. but it seems more like just falling in line with a republican/foxnews/anti-liberal/anti-intellectual sentiment in the population.