There is one thing that has to be realized concerning the composition of the Bioethics Advisory Council: President Bush is not spending a lot of time worrying about it! At most, he is throwing a small bone to his religiously conservative supporters. He truly perceives himself first, last, and foremost, as the war president. The economy comes a close second---and everything else receives as little attention as possible. Even the recent marriage amendment which will help his reelection efforts is not considered a major theme. We are in a war against Islamic fascists who are committed to murdering us. The cloning debate just isn’t that big of a deal in the larger scheme of things.

"...The economy comes a close second---and everything else receives as little attention as possible."

If Bush can't multitask, he should leave his job to someone else. Like in the real world, let the most qualified do the job.

“If Bush can't multitask, he should leave his job to someone else. Like in the real world, let the most qualified do the job.”

You are probably saying that only because the war on terror is not high on your list of things to worry about. Deep in your heart of hearts, if not even consciously, you believe that the terrorists have legitimate gripes against the United States. They are not primarily militant religious nihilists, but individuals who are misunderstood and angry at our relationship with Israel and the dictators running their countries. At most, the police should be sent after these thugs. Our use of the military is an indulgence in overkill. And 9/11? Oh that, is so five minutes ago.

I think they keep pulling maneuvers like this because they are betting on the public attention span being what it generally is - short to nonexistent.

They repeatedly make questionable moves, then clam up and weather the storm for a few days - then the "look over there!" happens, everyone looks away, and they get what they wanted in the first place. They may not pull it off every time, but I think it's been working enough that they're still more than willing to go to it in the playbook quite often.

Why is anyone surprised that Bush does this?

He has always had a know-nothing approach.

Oh and PLEASE let's end this nonsense about war president.

He is no such thing.

Aren't you still remiss about commenting on the change in the bioethics commission. Do you care? or is it enough for VP to care since she cared from the beginning?

thelrd in TEXAS

“Oh and PLEASE let's end this nonsense about war president.

He is no such thing. “

President George W. Bush is definitely the war president. You may argue that he is not living up to your expectations---but he is definitely our national leader during this war. I suspect that your comment is some sort of Freudian slip. You probably mean that you don’t consider the Islamic militants to be a true threat of mammoth proportions.

Enough with this war president nonsense.

Doesn't anybody read history anymore?

“Doesn't anybody read history anymore?”

Yes, and that’s why I can easily say that George W. Bush is a war president. My position is similar to a slam dunk by Michael Jordan over a grade school basketball player. You are simply displaying your abysmal lack of knowledge.

Is it really that surprising that scientifically literate technophile libertarians have little in common with the religious right?

And that a political alliance between the two will show signs of strain once they manage to get a guy in power who they think will represent their interests when their interests are in conflict?

And that when forced to choose between scientific rationalists and superstitious luddites the administration reflexively chooses the side with the larger number of voters?

rubber -> road

My position is similar to a slam dunk by Michael Jordan over a grade school basketball player.

No, it's more like a guy playing putt-putt who thinks he's Tiger Woods.

Get a grip, Dave.

Considering that most of the population are "superstitious luddites," if public enthusiasm for organic food and "fair trade" coffee are any indication, not to mention those stupid "radiation protection" stickers for cell phones, I think more rationally-motivated people of any political persuasion will find a lot to be desired in any democratic polity.

“No, it's more like a guy playing putt-putt who thinks he's Tiger Woods.

Get a grip, Dave.”

I need to get a grip? How so? What say you about the war on terror?

Thomson,

Personally the oldman's opinion is that we should kill them all (terrorists). However, Bush is doing at best a lackluster job at it and at times has proven fumble-footed. The earlier point stands. This is the most powerful nation in the recorded history of the world. Being able to chew gum and walk at the same time is not too much to ask. It's not as if Bush's days and nights are consumed with counter-terrorism planning and executing operations. He still has time to take long vacations, give speeches, do fundraisers, and attend social events like NASCAR. Since Bush has by his actions defined himself as willing to run on domestic socioeconomic issues, I suggest you take your war rhetoric and stuff it. Even if we were to judge Bush solely by his foreign policy record, at best it's tepid and lukewarm.

Hardly a strong recommendation to a second term. This guy ain't no world-beater.

Come on Oldman. George Bush's record "tepid and lukewarm"? In foreign policy, much less any department? And you ask me to get a grip. Look at this guy's lifetime record. He spent years goofing off, doing drugs and drinking, landed some CEO positions due to his family connections, ran some companies into the ground, was elected to a ceremonial governorship, started polling well nationally because he had the same name as a recent President, and was elected President despite being obviously ignorant of most world affairs. How could someone with his background not do a fabulous job as President? Why don't you get a grip.

I forgot to mention, we were attacked by terrorists while he was President. What else do I have to say to convince you that he is the only man who can lead us through these dramatic times?

Actually I think "War President Bush" has a nice ring to it, as in:

"War President Bush announced today that he was supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

or

"When asked to identify his top priorities for a second term, War President Bush vowed to end the use of steroids in baseball."

or

"War President Bush reiterated his belief that regime change in Haiti was an essential step in the War on Terror. 'If Haiti had been able to obtain plutonium, we estimate they were less than a year away from building a dirty bomb,' War President Bush declared."

I think it fits.

Dear "not really Dave Thomson",

When will you liberals learn that distorting facts makes you as bad as the David Thomson types, and is worse because they're better at it and you end up losing! Let's face it, the "L" in Liberal has come to stand for "Loser" in recent times. The quote was "at best it's tepid and lukewarm". Amazing what ommitting two words will do to changing the meaning of a phrase. Of course, maybe because of social promotion your reading comprehension isn't that good.

What you oughta have learned by now, "not really David Thomson" is that the Republicans have routed you and that if you keep up you silly antic attitude no one is going to take you seriously. Much more of that, and Bush will have his second term. Jeering isn't going to be winning any elections. Just ask the Wellstone crowd. They didn't do any favors for Mondale let me tell you.

I think people are failing to address the point ... Bush is AGAIN stacking committee's that were apolitical with pure idealogues. This isn't new either, for the past three years, there has been a constant stream of people complaining about how Bush is messing with scientific committees -- editorials in Science & Nature, and letters by nobel lauretes. There is no denying that this is real. As has been pointed out over and over again, this type of manipulation is unprecedented. It's not that Bush is spinning the results of science (every administration does that) he's fixing the committees so he doesn't get the right results.

It's even more important to note that this isn't even a partisan issue. Hatch and the Chair of the House Science committee, both *republicans*, have issued strong criticisms of many of Bush's anti-science actions. As many people have pointed out, over and over again, the Bush administration is full of wingnuts.

Even more amusing is that this isn't just isolated to science, but has been the defacto policy of the Bush administration since day one. Twist all policy descions for political convience. Whether it's on teh war on terror (c.f. Iraq WMD), the economy (oh where to begin?), marriage, tarrifs on steel, or any other matter. It's a pattern.

The evidence is literally overwhelming. It's not dem/repub.

DT -- imagine if Micheal Moore was running the country.

Oldman

Actually, “Not Really David Thompson” seriously underestimates Bush. Bush never goes out charging windmills. He puts his finger in the air, sniffs the wind, gets in front of the parade, and then tries to change the direction the parade is heading.

The Mars and Steroid proposals/mentions were fingers in the air. The prescription drug benefit and the FMA were attempts to get in front of the parade. The BEA changes, the attempt to hurry along the 9/11 commission, and the commission he formed to study WMDs are examples of trying to change the direction of the parade by adjusting the information it receives. The parade can’t hurt you if you keep giving it a bad map.

Imagine if the real David Thompson were president. Would he be this subtle?

PS We are still on the topic of the Bioethics Commission, sort of.

I'm not interested in a War President who wants to preserve a nation that I don't recognize.

BTW Daniel, that first link is password-protected!

Get a grip, Dave.

My friends who play golf tell me that a good grip is important.

The Bush Administration's rejection of opinions from established science goes to the very core of their belief system. Since his idealogues operate from a position of absolute moral clarity, and since those established sciences are often at odds with this clarity, one of the two had to be wrong. We now know which one.

I often feel that Bush doesn't believe he's stacking the deck with these appointments, but rather giving a voice to the opinions he believes to be correct. It's just that his absolute moral clarity allows him to avoid any discussion or debate.

Sorry for the mixed metaphor in the last post. I was just trying to grab the bull by the horns and make the first down.

Dave Thompson wrote:
> What say you about the war on terror?

Well since you asked, I'm all for it.

Unfortunately, Bush opted to waste a tremendous amount of resourses on Iraq instead. Let's hope the next administration can focus on the task at hand.

uh...clem...

Oddly enough, Iraq may be decisive in the War on Terror. Consider:

1. We invade Iraq, which causes Qaddafi to get nervous;

2. Nervous Qaddafi tries to get a shipment of more nukes, which even our WMD challenged CIA can spot;

3. Nervous Qaddaffi, now more nervous, declares defeat, caves to US demands on most everything, and rats out Mr. Khan in Pakistan;

4. US takes info, and puts the fear of God in Pakistan (with a little assist from the dingbats at AlQ)

5. Suddenly, Pakistan gets tough in its territories;

6. Suddenly Osama and crowd are finding their home country less secure. Looks like Osama and his dialysis machine may need to travel (again); resulting in

7. Increased likelihood of Osama capture, as he is again on the run.

It's all very Rube Goldberg, but the racket made sounds an awful lot like the falling dominos that Wolfie and company promised us when Iraq was invaded.

What was the topic again?

Taking it back on the bioethics panel:

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=83455#post83460

User Beestie researches the gents tossed off the panel, and finds that one is not anti-stem cell research, while the other was due to be tossed anyway.

Oops

As near as I can tell, the sole input to the Bioethics Advisory Council is hot air and its sole output is flatulence. Therefore the composition of the council is of no concern to me.

There is a sound case for abolishing the Council. It would save money. There is also reason to believe that whatever this or any similar Council says: 1) we will receive many learned opinions on the subject of the Councils work from many talking heads, on many blogs, and on many op-ed pages; and 2) none of these opinions will influence legislation in the slightest which will be shaped by the real war in America -- between town and gown (bet the side that knows how to field strip and clean its rifles).

Now by way of full disclosure, I am an alumnus of the University of Chicago (1970) and I took political theory from Strauss' colleague and co-author Joseph Cropsey. I do not fancy myself a Straussian except to the extent that I believe that the study of politics must begin with the classics (by which I do not mean To Kill A Mockingbird). But, I think that Leon Kass has contributed no meaningful analysis to the discussion of problems set before the Council.

I am a right wing conservative, not a libertarian, and try to derive my serious moral judgments from normative/historical Jewish sources (not the CCAR), but I do not think that the Council or the Administration are anywhere near correct in their judgements on these issues.

How does this impact my vote in November. Not at all. The American political system creates two parties, which must of necessity be "big tents." The classic example is the Democratic Party from 1932 to 1964, which included both race baiting dixecrats and civil rights activists. For a generation it dominated American Politics. Needless to say, many noses were held at election time. The current Republican coalition includes, libertarians, evangelicals, war hawks, and country club members. Do they agree on very much? I doubt it. Will many of them get so mad at Bush about the Bioethics Advisory Council that the will vote for JFK2? I doubt it. There really are more important things.

In my case they are the Islamic War against the West, tax policy and Social Security. On these issues, especially the first, which is of the utmost importance to me, I feel that it would be a tragedy if JFK2 were elected President. I do not agree with GWB nor Leon Kass about the Bioethics Advisory Council in the slightest, but its just not that important to me.

Robert Shwartz raises a very good point in this discussion. How many people that were planning to vote for Bush in November will change their votes over this? As far as I can see, not many. The libertarians might be a bit unhappy, but considering that their only alternative is to vote for Kerry, I'd say they're pretty solidly in Bush's camp for this one. Particularly as the Commission doesn't seem to do much thats useful, this issue isn't really a deal breaker.

Dear D. Thomson (here is a little mirror trick for you, and I promise I will actually be on topic):
"You are probably saying that only because the war on terror is not high on your list of things to worry about."

You are probably saying this because science and facts are not high on the list of things you worry about.

I repeat: If Bush can't share his attention between priority number 1 and 2 and 3, he should let someone more qualified do the job.

"Deep in your heart of hearts, if not even consciously, you believe that the terrorists have legitimate gripes against the United States."
Deep in your heart, if not even consciously, you believe that scientific facts are an impediment to the rush to power of your like-minded fanatics.

"They are not primarily militant religious nihilists, but individuals who are misunderstood and angry at our relationship with Israel and the dictators running their countries."
You believe that anyone in your mad path to power is a terrorist or sympathiser.

"At most, the police should be sent after these thugs."
Faith and ideology should come first, and any critical voice, no matter how legitimate should be removed from panels.

"Our use of the military is an indulgence in overkill.
Dissent is an indulgence.

"And 9/11? Oh that, is so five minutes ago."
And Creation, that was so 6,000 years ago.

So, stop supporting the Luddites, or risk giving Bush supporters a worse name than they already have.

His

Appalled Moderate:
Oddly enough, Iraq may be decisive in the War on Terror. Consider:

...elision of seven circuituous steps that may or may not lead to OBL's capture...

It's all very Rube Goldberg...

You can say that again.

And after these guys have been proven wrong about so many things (e.g. existence of WMDs, being greeted as liberators, etc.) is it even remotely possible that they can think seven moves ahead?

uh_clem:

I don't see a great and all powerful Oz, er, Bush, predicting these seven easy steps to Osama. I don't think there is any way anybody could (or should).

But, the whole Iraq thing, once you strip away the whole WMD bull, was about getting into Iraq(because we could), and have that shattering event change the landscape in the Middle East, change the way leaders there think, and through this change, erase some of those famous "root causes" of terrorism. This was (and is) a pretty huge gamble. You might disagree with the policy, and deplore the ritual fibbing that seems to have gotten us there. But, in the minds of Bush and his neoconservatives, the war in Iraq was key to the war of terror.

So basically, Bush & Co, in Iraq, were endeavoring to stir things up, in the hopes that
the result would be positive in the terror war. Seems to me that they accomplished some of that.

This, btw, is one of the reasons Kerry is just not appealing to me. Al Q and friends is not going to be successfully battled by a take no risks pol who'd just rather have the cops handle this stuff and talk about healthcare.

Sorry to interrupt, all. Please return to your discussion about bioethics...

Jeering isn't going to be winning any elections.

Oh Oldman, keep the wisdom flowing. I am actually John Kerry's campaign manager and at this blog I am practicing techniques that will convince Republicans to vote for Kerry in November. I obviously don't know much yet, but you seem like quite the sage. I've already learned that one's opinions cannot be judged on their meirts, but on whether or not one belongs to the "dominant" political party of the day. How silly of me to mock David Thomson's persistent ridiculousness; haven't I learned that anything from Republican supremacy? Keep it coming.

What's wrong with non-embryonic stem cells? They're already using them to treat medical problems.

"What's wrong with non-embryonic stem cells? They're already using them to treat medical problems."

Nothing is "wrong" with them. The real issue is that it is far too early to make a decision regarding the potential therapeutic usefulness of adult versus embryonic stem cells.

There are various pros and cons to each of them, and some diseases are likely to be treated more easily with one or the other (as is seen in mice). The current scientific consensus is that both should be researched.

See what your (half-) compatriots have to say about it in:
http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/news/features/billc13/scientists.php

*So basically, Bush & Co, in Iraq, were endeavoring to stir things up, in the hopes that
the result would be positive in the terror war. Seems to me that they accomplished some of that.*

I pray that you comprehend the full impact of such an "end justifies the means" philosophy.

*Al Q and friends is not going to be successfully battled by a take no risks pol who'd just rather have the cops handle this stuff and talk about healthcare.*

But, those RISKS -!?! Can you really subscribe to such roll-the-dice tactics while hundreds of U.S. soldiers die waiting to see if you gambled correctly?

*Sorry to interrupt, all. Please return to your discussion about bioethics...*

Really nothing to be sorry for. At some point, I've seen this topic insert itself in almost every discussion. May be a sign of its significance.

The Bush43 Administration has shown a consistent trend of politicizing policy apparatus and trying to skew the debate by intimidating or cherry-picking participants who will "get with the program". This has extended from the EPA, to the Treasury department, to the President's Economic Council, to the office for faith-based initiatives, to changing the rules on peer review of science, to issues of national security and intelligence findings ... and all of this has been documented and much of it could be proven in a court of law.

Now as Daniel Moynihan pointed out we are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. All good decision making first comes from fact finding. The most disturbing thing about this Administration is not their philosophical choices about what values to pursue, but their complete obliviousness to the need for honest inquiry and fact driven decision making.

As such, the packing of the bioethics comittee is just on par with their wishful thinking mantra.

Nadeem Riaz wrote:

There is no denying that this is real. As has been pointed out over and over again, this type of manipulation is unprecedented. It's not that Bush is spinning the results of science (every administration does that) he's fixing the committees so he doesn't get the right results.

From a recent column by Ronald Bailey (click on my name for the entire article with the links) who supports stem cell research BTW:

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Bush administration has done all that UCS accuses it of doing. This problem is not particular to Republican administrations—the very linkage of government and science almost guarantees some chicanery. Let's recall the halcyon days of the Clinton administration. In 1993, Princeton University physicist William Happer was fired from the Department of Energy because he disagreed with Vice President Al Gore's views on stratospheric ozone depletion. In 1994, President Bill Clinton rejected the finding from the Embryo Research Panel of the National Institutes of Health which declared that the intentional creation of human embryos for genetic research was ethical. Clinton simply banned any federal funding for such research.

And in 1993, the EPA used a meta-analysis of a number of studies to find that second-hand smoke caused lung cancer in adult non-smokers and serious respiratory problems in children. That may well be, but the EPA had to put its thumb on the scales in order to get the result it wanted. The agency included just 11 out of 30 known studies on second-hand smoke in its meta-analysis, and even then found no increased risk to non-smokers at the 95 percent confidence level that had been the traditional agency standard. So the agency simply moved the confidence level from 95 percent to 90 percent in order to get the result it wanted.

At the time, I talked to a member of the EPA's scientific advisory board, an epidemiologist working at a leading east coast university who requested anonymity. He told me that he knew it was inadvisable to change the confidence level. He didn't oppose the change, though, because he was afraid he would be kicked off the board if he didn't go along. "I wanted to remain relevant to the policy process," he explained. He was also an EPA grant recipient.

Gee, it looks like this sort of “manipulation” isn’t as “unprecedented” as some would like to believe

Oldman wrote:

The Bush43 Administration has shown a consistent trend of politicizing policy apparatus and trying to skew the debate by intimidating or cherry-picking participants who will "get with the program". This has extended from the EPA, to the Treasury department, to the President's Economic Council, to the office for faith-based initiatives, to changing the rules on peer review of science, to issues of national security and intelligence findings ... and all of this has been documented and much of it could be proven in a court of law.

Okay, let’s see the documentation.

Sam wrote:

Robert Shwartz raises a very good point in this discussion. How many people that were planning to vote for Bush in November will change their votes over this? As far as I can see, not many. The libertarians might be a bit unhappy, but considering that their only alternative is to vote for Kerry, I'd say they're pretty solidly in Bush's camp for this one. Particularly as the Commission doesn't seem to do much thats useful, this issue isn't really a deal breaker.

Robert and Sam each make an excellent point. As one of those atheistic neo-libertarians who is voting for Bush43 for the obvious reasons(1), this will also not sway my vote, even though I’m pro-stem cell research. More importantly I don’t think it’s that bad necessarily.

My understanding is that the moratorium on embryonic stem cell research was actually rather limited in that it only covered federally-funded research on research on new lines created by newly destroyed human embryos. Which means then that it does not cover or prohibit any of the following:

1) Privately funded research
2) State-funded research
3) Research using adult stem cells (from placenta and umbilical cords)
4) Research using embryonic stem cells from already destroyed lines

It seems to me that proponents of limited government and federalism (of which I am one) would argue that all non-defense R&D ought to be in either categories 1 or 2 of which the moratorium does not affect. Category 3 may or may not have the same potential as adult stem cell research (I’ve read conflicting accounts on this) and category 4 does utilize embryonic stem cells, it just does not encourage the destruction of any more human embryos (which is the ethical problem for some).

I could see a possible area for concern if we tried to ban 1 and 2, but that would require a law by Congress and therefore the recommendations of the Bioethics Council really isn’t important since it does not carry the weight of law. If they do end up continuing the moratorium on using new embryonic stem cell lines, it can still be funded by non-federal means (as it ought to IMNHO) and we still are funding plenty of research in that area.

TW

(1) The War, Social Security Reform, health care reform (and hopefully Medicare) policies which are generally oriented towards long-term economic growth, judicial nominees, and the fact that Kerry is worse than Bush on spending, deficits, and trade.

TW -

As, my cell biologist husband explains, most research money comes from the Federal government. Use of stems cells my a research insitution that receives govenement funds will result in those funds being pulled for the entire organization, not just for one primary investigator.

Thus many institutions, like the U of California, are starting to build endowments so that when the time comes that a team of researchers want to word on a stem cell line not on the Bush list, the UC can back them up and still fund research throughout. It's a huge, huge problem, esp, when you realize that most bio graduate students receive some sort of National Insituties of Health (NIH) funding. For a research insitution to take on the burden of their education and the cost of their research will require deep, deep pockets...and frankly no one has pockets that deep.

You note "3) Research using adult stem cells (from placenta and umbilical cords), 4) Research using embryonic stem cells from already destroyed lines" is still funded.

I believe you're wrong, but I'll go ask the Lab again about this. My understading is that the ban was on all stem cell lines other than the ones on the bush list - regardless of their development. Also, as any cell biologist will tell you, a cell from the placenta will not act the same way as a cell from a embryo. We cannot assume experienments on adult stems cells will produce results that hold true for embryonic stem cells. Also, stem cell lines don't live forever, and the ones on the Bush list are getting old. Some may be already useless. Ergo, everyone who does embyronic stem cell reserach in this country is at some point going to need new lines to continue their studies.

Getting back to the Panel, yes they don't have the force of law, but the Executive Order does have the ability to halt funding. And with Congress refusing to call the President on it, it might as well be law.

I believe the president has changed the Panel so that he can use them to promote certain ideas about medical research. You might not think much of them now, but what happens when the Panel starts advising the creation of research laws and promoting a set of norms? They remind me of a another group...namely the SEC. Imagine them with the veto power over scientific experiments in this country, or them setting the ethical guidelines. Then maybe you'll understand why most of the scientific community (including 26 Nobel Prize winners) is up in arms, and why the "substitutions" made last month bode ill for the health sciences.

Carolina

Carolina:

First: From Today's NYTimes:

Dr. Douglas Melton, a biologist at Harvard, reported today in The New England Journal of Medicine that he had developed 17 new human stem cell lines with private money and would make them available to other researchers.

So lack of federal funding does not prevent stem cell research.

Second: More importantly, What I said above was that the opinions of the Bioethics Advisory Council would not influence the actions of politicians in the slightest. Kass was given the job because he had already taken an inflexible position on the issue and his job was to bloviate in favor of that position. He is an empty suit, and the rest of the council are shadows on the wall.

Third, the Bioethics Advisory Council bears no more resembelance to the Securities and Exchange Commission than Dan Drezner does to the Metro-Goldwin-Mayer Lion. The Bioethics Advisory Council is a mere advisory committee. GIGO. The SEC (and I speak as an expert) was created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under that law and the other laws that it administers, it has the power to issue rules and regulations (subject to the Administrative Proceedure Act) having the force of law, it has the power to audit compliance with and investigate violations of the laws it administers and the rules and regulations it promulgated (by manditory process if need be), it also has the power to issue stop orders, bar people from certain jobs and refer matters for criminal prosecution. The SEC is judge, jury and lord high executioner. The members of the SEC are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

In summary the Bioethics Advisory Council is a joke and the SEC is as serious a heart attack.

Robert -

Thanks for your link.

First, I see that the article goes on to say that scientists supported by gov. grants can't use Dr. Melton's lines. I amend my statement - most research insitutions are not capable at this time of challenging the Executive Order.

Dr. Melton has the very good fortune to be sponsored by the Howard Hughes Medical Foundation, and group that throws tons of money at the researchers they believe to be the creme-de-la-creme of health sciences. The HHMI is one of the few independent reserche institions in the US who could take on the US gov. Their association with Harvard is due to the excellent medical community. Researchers do not act in a vaccumn, and the HHMI, rather than put all the good researchers in a single lab, tends allow them to choose a community (like Havard or U of C) to work in. HHMI then pays the entire way for lab space, etc. HHMI's labs belong to the HHMI not Harvard.

I am doubtful that all the researchers in Dr. Melton's lab are completely funded by the HHMI. It's possible, but most researchers I know (and I worked briefly in an HHMI lab) receive additional funding from the federal governement. I suspect Dr. Melton's made sure that the researchers who do work with the cells (and his pancreatic reserch is on non-human cells as well), are fully funded by the HHMI.

I would be deeply surprised if non-independent reserchers (or any non-HHMI) researchers accepted Dr. Melton's offer.

Second, I agree with your point about Leon Kass. I met him before and during my time at U of C. i think, if anything, he's become more rigid in the last few years. I suspect if he'd never written with Amy that awful book on marriage, he'd never been proposed for a position he is ill-equipped to handle.

Third, on the SEC, I stand corrected. It was very bad of me to compare the Bioethics Council to the SEC. I should watch my analogies. I think the President would like to take the Council to that level, but lacks the political will to do so. Perhaps you are right - maybe the council is a joke designed to appease the right wing. I suspect, however, that if Congress became more conservative, we might see legistlation enshiring them.

Fifth, I think the existence, and placement of conservative wackos on the council (why mince words?) is a sign of the times. The Bush administration excels at creating and generating public support for very dubious ideas. I suspect if it were not for the loud, public dennuciation of the council by scientists, we might see already successful legislation on stem cells and other cloning research.

So while they're a joke now, I doubt we'll laugh at them much in the not-to-distant future.

Carolina

Side note: there was a fourth point, but I'm multitasking. must proof read....

Carolina

You're correct Carolina. The Bioethics council stacking is but a drop in the bucket, when it comes to the Bush jihad against Western enlightement and science. Scientific facts should never be manufactured or thrown out at will, yet that is precisely what's happening.

Good websites on the problem include:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/
http://www.ucsusa.org/

TW, I read the Bailey article and its really slanted. When Clinton rejected the advice of the bioethics panel, he didn't stack the panel, he just didn't support its conclusions. This is not what Bush is doing. Bush is altering the panels -- he's not getting the opinion of experts in the field -- he's getting the opinion of idealogues. Spinning panel descions (what Clinton did) has been done by every administration (See my orginal post). Almsot eveoyne who commented on Bush's distortion's noted that -- this is fundamentally different.

As for the EPA second hand smoke story, again Baily is either grossly exagerating or leaving out key details. I don't know much about the second hand smoke issue, but the arguments he presents are not convincing to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of biostatistics. Confidence intervals (or the p-value used to denote significance) is completely arbitrary. Although most studies do report at the 95% level, 90% is acceptable in certain cases. The big thing with these kind of epidemological studies is that is their a feasible biological model for the claim you are making? There is no doubt that smoking increases your risk for lung cancer. A lot is known about the carinogens in smoke. Hence, there is a very believable model for second hand causing smoking. Since the physical model is their and proven in other cases, lowering the confidence level is acceptable. As for the meta-analysis only using 11 of 30 studies, again, its hard to say why they did that, w/o more info. Sometimes not all studies can be used in a meta because of the way they were done. So it might be they used the most # of studies they could.

On The Gore issue, again, I don't know the details, but that seems like an isolated incidient. People aren't complaining jsut because Bush stacked one panel. He's been stacking panels for the past few years. There have been a study stream of editorials on Bush's politicization of scientific descion making. See Science, Nature, or JAMA for more details. This is not Bush's first time, or second time.

"when it comes to the Bush jihad against Western enlightement and science"

Quite a metaphor.

Upcoming presentation at MIT on science and policymaking, especially in reference to the Bush administration. Speakers to include Kevin Knobloch, Philop Morrison, and E.O. Wilson.

http://web.mit.edu/hemisphere/events/bush-science.shtml

It is my understanding that an audiostream of the presentation will be available.

Robert Schwartz at March 5, 2004 01:30 PM

"Quite a metaphor."

I was very hyperbolic, granted, but keep in mind I wanted to describe the dramatic erosion of scientific analysis and argumentation in favor of sheer ideological concerns.
I am not naive enough to believe that politics will never play (or shouldn't play) a role, but it should come second at best, especially when making policies regarding the environment, workplace safety, research funding priorities, national disease control, food safety, industry pollution management, space exploration, etc.