Bush Science

Got the latest issue of "Sierra" magazine and in the section called "WWatch: Keeping Tabs on Washington" there was a paragraph blurb called "Weird Science".  It went on to talk about a new term being used by the Bush Administration for use with our EPA.  It's called "policy-relevant" science".

In other words, it's the new handle for having politically focused administrators cook the books of scientists before they're released to the public.  I see that there are a couple of articles on this new term if not exactly new activity.  

Early on there was the tried and true conservative, to often Republican, angle of wanting to check into the "cost-benefit" of environmental legislation as a way of killing it for political economic reasons. 

Pricing the Priceless: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Health, Safety, and Environmental Protection - Center for Progressive Regulation

"Two features of cost-benefit analysis distinguish it from other approaches to evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of environmentally protective regulations: the translation of lives, health, and the natural environment into monetary terms, and the discounting of harms to human health and the environment that are expected to occur in the future. CPR believes that these features of cost-benefit analysis make it a terrible way to make decisions about environmental protection, for both intrinsic and practical reasons."

Also some of us recall how Bush bureaucrats recently tried to cook the books on global warming reports.

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him - New York Times (29 Jan 2006)

"The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists."

But on to the new and improved political tomfoolery...

Those Pesky Scientists - International Herald Tribune (11 Dec 2006)

"Under the new process, initial reviews will be done by staff scientists and political appointees, who together will produce a synopsis of "policy-relevant" science — which sounds ominously like science tailored to predetermined policy outcomes. The independent scientists, meanwhile, will be frozen out until the very end, when they will be allowed to comment on proposals that will have already generated considerable momentum."

Kept in the Dark - Commondreams.org (29 Dec 2006)

"Under the new procedure this is less likely to happen since independent scientists will only be called on after political hacks and staff scientists have come up with what is now called “policy-relevant” science. The name suggests that policy and science should be given equal weight. The EPA is not alone in this most recent assault on knowledge-based decision-making."

Bush Science

Got the latest issue of "Sierra" magazine and in the section called "WWatch: Keeping Tabs on Washington" there was a paragraph blurb called "Weird Science".  It went on to talk about a new term being used by the Bush Administration for use with our EPA.  It's called "policy-relevant" science".

In other words, it's the new handle for having politically focused administrators cook the books of scientists before they're released to the public.  I see that there are a couple of articles on this new term if not exactly new activity.  

Early on there was the tried and true conservative, to often Republican, angle of wanting to check into the "cost-benefit" of environmental legislation as a way of killing it for political economic reasons. 

Pricing the Priceless: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Health, Safety, and Environmental Protection - Center for Progressive Regulation

"Two features of cost-benefit analysis distinguish it from other approaches to evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of environmentally protective regulations: the translation of lives, health, and the natural environment into monetary terms, and the discounting of harms to human health and the environment that are expected to occur in the future. CPR believes that these features of cost-benefit analysis make it a terrible way to make decisions about environmental protection, for both intrinsic and practical reasons."

Also some of us recall how Bush bureaucrats recently tried to cook the books on global warming reports.

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him - New York Times (29 Jan 2006)

"The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists."

But on to the new and improved political tomfoolery...

Those Pesky Scientists - International Herald Tribune (11 Dec 2006)

"Under the new process, initial reviews will be done by staff scientists and political appointees, who together will produce a synopsis of "policy-relevant" science — which sounds ominously like science tailored to predetermined policy outcomes. The independent scientists, meanwhile, will be frozen out until the very end, when they will be allowed to comment on proposals that will have already generated considerable momentum."

Kept in the Dark - Commondreams.org (29 Dec 2006)

"Under the new procedure this is less likely to happen since independent scientists will only be called on after political hacks and staff scientists have come up with what is now called “policy-relevant” science. The name suggests that policy and science should be given equal weight. The EPA is not alone in this most recent assault on knowledge-based decision-making."