Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.
The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.
According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.
It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives.
The Union has released an “A to Z” guide that it says documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science, covering issues ranging from global warming to sex education.
Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.
Michael Halpern from the UCS said the statement of objection to political interference had been supported by researchers regardless of their political views.
“This science statement that has now been signed by the 10,000 scientists is signed by science advisers to both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to President Eisenhower, stating that this is not business as usual and calling for this practice to stop,” he told BBC News.
Phew! That’s a lot of well-educated subversives. A number of university science departments must still be teaching ethics.
#38 Fusion, you want me to give you a quick link to support my position, except that my position is based upon twenty years of observations, reading, and study. Sorry, but I don’t have the time to compile a list of appropriate links that I’m sure you wouldn’t bother to read anyway.
DDT is a tragic example of environmetalism run amok. There was never any proof that DDT harmed humans, but, by God, we found it in human breast milk so it must be bad. Millions have died as a result, but since they are mostly black from third world countries, their deaths are largely ignored.
Fortunately, the World Health Organization is planning to allow DDT to be used again. A little late for millions.
I wonder how Rachael Carson can sleep at night?
If only 10,000 researchers are complaining, shouldn’t we just call them whiners and ignore them? These people who want to be able to publish and discuss their findings without externally-imposed filters sound very cultish, and not at all like mainstream America. Who would expect a Nobel Laureate to understand how the world really works? If scientists think it’s bad working for a politically-motivated government, they should try working for a corporation, like a chemical or drug company.
Even better than ignoring them, everyone signing that petition who has a government job should be fired — that’ll teach ‘em the lesson they missed in science class!
#39, Ron
I’m still waiting for anyone to cite anything to prove I am wrong. Typical of the left.
Here let me cite a few examples,
#15, …DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics.
#22, …It is widely known in the pest control world that the mechanism in which DDT works is not directly on the insects themselves. It kills the birds which the mosquito’s eat.
#24, …maybe you should point out that the article conclude that DDT is no longer effective? That there are other more effective pestacides? Or how about, there is no actual DDT ban?
#28, …Since Mosquitoes only live in standing water, along with other insects, spraying a small amount of SOAP on the surface is enough to kill millions. (sp-c)
Or if you don’t like those sources right here, try out Agriculture Canada list of banned chemicals. Canada does its own environmental testing. Then check out the British list of banned chemicals. They also do their own testing.
Also try the EPA own’s conclusion about DDT
Probable human carcinogen
Damages the liver
Temporarily damages the nervous system
Reduces reproductive success
Can cause liver cancer
Damages reproductive system
http://tinyurl.com/yfr36g
(Ron, that is called a link, it will take you to the page I took this information from)
DDT affects the nervous system.
http://tinyurl.com/yjz6bd
There is evidence that DDT causes teratogenic effects in test animals as well. …
The evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of DDT is equivocal. It has been shown to cause increased tumor production (mainly in the liver and lung) in test animals such as rats, mice and hamsters …
There has been much concern over chronic exposure of bird species to DDT and effects on reproduction, especially eggshell thinning and embryo deaths
http://tinyurl.com/ykg6dc
You get the message, there is a lot of reference material out there, if you want to look.
“Little toxicity is seen following the dermal exposure to DDT, presumably because the agent is poorly absorbed through the skin, a physiologic phenomenon that has contributed to the rather good safety record of DDT, despite careless handling by applicators and formulators (Hayes, 1971). It has been estimated that a dose of 10 mg/kg will cause signs of poisoning in humans. Chronic exposure to moderate concentrations of DDT causes somewhat milder signs of toxicity as listed in Table 18-7.” (table located on page 575 in book referenced below)
“Although the functional injury of DDT poisoning can be associtated with effects on the CNS, few pathologic changes can be demonstrated in that tissue in animals. However, following exposure to moderate or high nonfatal doses or subsequent to subacute or chronic feeding, major pathologic changes are observed in the liver and reproductive organs. Morphalogic changes in mammalian liver include hypertrphy of hepatocytes and subcellular organelles such as mitochondria, proliferation of smooth endoplamic reticulum and the formation of inclusion bodies, centrolobular necrosis followoing exposure to high concentrations, and an increase in the incidence of hepatic tumors (Hayes, 1959; Hansell and Ecobichon, 1974; IARC, 1974). However, there has been no epidemiologic evidence linking DDT to carcinogenicity in humans (Hayes, 1975, 1982).
. . . Unlike the situation with DDT where there have been few recorded fatalities following poisoning, there have been a number of fatalities following poisioning by cyclodiene and hexachlorocylcohexane type insectides.”
Casarett and Doull’s TOXICOLOGY, the Basic Science of Poisons, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, pages 574-575.
Any science coming out of the US Environmental Protection Agency is considered highly suspect by anyone that actually followed the process.
#45, Smith,
Have you got any references less then 20 years old?
#45 Fusion, that particular book was the reference book in my 1995 post-graduate, toxicology course. Please keep in mind that all of the referenced studies were damn near everything that was available at the time DDT was banned.
Here’s a few more cited sources for Mr. Fusion.
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm#ref6
I’m sure you can figure out a cut and paste, but it may be hard