[Meneldil]

The first link is a summary of the report, with a link to the full report at the bottom. The second link is a Scientific American article.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environ...fm?pageID=1322
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...3483414B7F0000

Bush's environmental record is one of the main reasons I don't support him, so I'm glad to see this. Hopefully it'll help put pressure on him if he gets reelected. I don't know many people who have paid attention to Bush's actions on the environment and come out agreeing with him - granted a lot of my friends have liberal leanings, and many of my professors lean left as well. Those of you who have looked into things in any depth: what do you think about Bush's environmental record?

[SimeyTheLimey]

"Union of Concerned Scientists criticizes Bush in report."

I'm shocked.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
"Union of Concerned Scientists criticizes Bush in report."

I'm shocked.

Well I don't see the "Union of Unconcerned Scientists" rebuking them!

[itai195]

Heh, Scientific American has been ragging on Bush's environmental policies (or non-policies) quite a bit.

[djohnson]

Same here. Who would think that liberals would critisize a conservative President?

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Same here. Who would think that liberals would critisize a conservative President?

Liberals or not, they're some of the top scientists in their fields...do you simply discount them due to their politics?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Well I don't see the "Union of Unconcerned Scientists" rebuking them!

Maybe because they are too busy doing science rather than political lobbying?

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
"Union of Concerned Scientists criticizes Bush in report."

I'm shocked.

I know that they're a liberal leaning group, however, I'd hope that you can look past that. Something that is fairly basic to being a good scientist is the ability to look at something as objectively as possible, not letting your own motivations color your results. Maybe some of them are letting their hatred of Republicans get away from them, but all of them? Secondly, if you don't particularly care about Bush's stance on the environment, ignore this; if you've looked into his policies at all, what do you think of them? Are you just dismissing this group's opinion because of their leanings, or do you disagree with their conclusions?

That's for you too, djohnson.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Liberals or not, they're some of the top scientists in their fields...do you simply discount them due to their politics?

Maybe if they are such great scientist, they should stick to science instead of politics?

[Logic]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Maybe if they are such great scientist, they should stick to science instead of politics?

Absolutely not. Great scientists should force our leaders to take notice and listen to them. It doesn't do anyone any good if the scientists would just sit in their labs chatting to each others about their findings. They have to get the message all the way to the top, so that the leaders can make informed decisions.

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Maybe if they are such great scientist, they should stick to science instead of politics?

So you think the very people who ought to know best about a certain policy should keep their mouths shut just because they aren't politicians? Should education policy be looked at by successful teachers, or should they keep their mouths shut and just teach when they see something they think is wrong? The average politician doesn't have the background to understand every issue that crosses their desk - where are they supposed to go for info? I'd say the oil companies get the chance to say their piece on global warming, why not some people who don't have financial interest in the outcome of the policy?

Edited to Add: In case you didn't read the report, I thought this quote by the elder Bush might apply.

Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.
— PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH, 1990

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Meneldil:
I know that they're a liberal leaning group, however, I'd hope that you can look past that. Something that is fairly basic to being a good scientist is the ability to look at something as objectively as possible, not letting your own motivations color your results.

This is a liberal-leaning lobbying group made up of liberal-leaning scientists who have self-selected to join the group because of their liberal views. Scientists who don't agree with their conclusions wouldn't join the group.

Once you have that kind of results-oriented self-selection, you no longer can claim to be driven neutrally by the results in the way that science is supposed to be. These are partisans. They get no more credit than any other partisan group. Lot's of partisan groups are made up of people with impressive credentials. But most of them wouldn't claim to represent everyone in the profession and to be above criticism and skepticism. Scientists above all should know that.

If they want to be taken seriously for the science, then they need to stay out of partisan politics. But the union of concerned scientists decided to go in the other direction decades ago.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance."

PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH, 1990

Just highlighting the important concepts.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If they want to be taken seriously for the science, then they need to stay out of partisan politics. But the union of concerned scientists decided to go in the other direction decades ago.

So, do you care to find any finding that counter their claims?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
So, do you care to find any finding that counter their claims?

I'm not a scientist. It's not my field.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not a scientist. It's not my field.

But still you claim that they can't be taken seriously?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
But still you claim that they can't be taken seriously?

Of course. It's the normal political filter anyone uses.

Would you take an avowedly right wing group at their word just because they were talking about something that isn't your field? I doubt it. I may not be equipped to evaluate their science, but I can see their politics and the fact that they are not objective.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of course. It's the normal political filter anyone uses.

Would you take an avowedly right wing group at their word just because they were talking about something that isn't your field? I doubt it.

I would try to take an objective look at what they say and see if I find something that counters their arguments.

And I try to not use a political filter since I view that as blinders that hinder me in making good decisions.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
I would try to take an objective look at what they say and see if I find something that counters their arguments.

That's great. But it takes a lot of research time which I don't have for every issue. In the mean time, I'm not going to take this particular group's word for anything just because they happen to be scientists and because they happen to think that means the rest of us should be awed into taking their word for anything and not notice their gross political slant. This particular group as a long track record of extreme and wrong policy opinions. For example, their advocation of a nuclear freeze in the early 1980s. We're not stupid. We can see that they aren't neutrals.

The Union of Concerned Scientists opposing Bush is as about as shocking news as the NRA supporting him. Their report gets filed in the cabinet marked "the Usual Suspects."

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is a liberal-leaning lobbying group made up of liberal-leaning scientists who have self-selected to join the group because of their liberal views. Scientists who don't agree with their conclusions wouldn't join the group.

Once you have that kind of results-oriented self-selection, you no longer can claim to be driven neutrally by the results in the way that science is supposed to be. These are partisans. They get no more credit than any other partisan group. Lot's of partisan groups are made up of people with impressive credentials. But most of them wouldn't claim to represent everyone in the profession and to be above criticism and skepticism. Scientists above all should know that.

If they want to be taken seriously for the science, then they need to stay out of partisan politics. But the union of concerned scientists decided to go in the other direction decades ago.

Well, I intended to use their report as an opening to ask what people think about his policies; I guess I didn't make it clear enough I knew I was getting most of my information from liberal leaning people. Perhaps I have too much faith in their credentials, but I don't see any problem with listening to advice on environmental policy from a group primarily interested in the environment. You could be right- maybe they all hate Republicans, maybe this totally prevents them from admitting Bush could ever do right by the environment. Isn't it possible, though, that he's doing a crappy job, that they see this as a problem, and are speaking out because they think things should be changed?

Anyway, now we all know that the UoCS is a liberal group, which I didn't make clear enough before. People in general - what do you think about their charge that Bush is misusing science? Have you run across any other opinions, conflicting or agreeing?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Their report gets filed in the cabinet marked "the Usual Suspects."

And while the Bush administration convieniently hides behind the 'liberal conspiracy' excuse - which apprently you and a good part of the American population buys, the findings are not checked and the environment continues to deteriorate.

Well done,

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
And while the Bush administration convieniently hides behind the 'liberal conspiracy' excuse - which apprently you and a good part of the American population buys, the findings are not checked and the environment continues to deteriorate.

Well done,

Two allegorical stories come to mind. One is the one about the boy who cried wolf. The other is the one about chicken little. Think about it.

It's why overt political advocacy and science don't mix well.

[Spliffdaddy]

"Perhaps I have too much faith in their credentials, but I don't see any problem with listening to advice on environmental policy from a group primarily interested in the environment."

That's great.

So why on earth did you post a link to an organization that is primarily interested in supporting the DNC and its liberal agenda?

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's great. But it takes a lot of research time which I don't have for every issue. In the mean time, I'm not going to take this particular group's word for anything just because they happen to be scientists and because they happen to think that means the rest of us should be awed into taking their word for anything and not notice their gross political slant. This particular group as a long track record of extreme and wrong policy opinions. For example, their advocation of a nuclear freeze in the early 1980s. We're not stupid. We can see that they aren't neutrals.

The Union of Concerned Scientists opposing Bush is as about as shocking news as the NRA supporting him. Their report gets filed in the cabinet marked "the Usual Suspects."

Damn people posting while I'm replying.

Since you mention the NRA, are you aware they gave Dean a very high rating during the Democratic primaries? While I suspect more NRA members tend to be Republican, as a single issue group, they ignore the candidate's other positions when evaluating a candidate. The UoCS is also a group focused on a narrow set of issues. As a group, they don't care about the death penalty or taxes AFAIK. Just because the environment is normally a Democrat's issue doesn't mean they couldn't endorse a Republican for doing a good job. I don't object to pointing out that is group has a bias, but your comment in the first post after mine makes it sound as if you totally dismiss any chance they're right due to their political leanings. I know you realize politics don't mean everything, I just felt like saying something - this board is so frustrating most of the time because of people being blinded by partisanship.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Two allegorical stories come to mind. One is the one about the boy who cried wolf. The other is the one about chicken little. Think about it.

It's why overt political advocacy and science don't mix well.

Your comment reminds me of another story, of the ant and the grasshopper.

[Spliffdaddy]

tell us a bedtime story, uncle Nicko.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
"Union of Concerned Scientists criticizes Bush in report."

I'm shocked.

Educated People criticize Bush in report

I'm not shocked.

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"Perhaps I have too much faith in their credentials, but I don't see any problem with listening to advice on environmental policy from a group primarily interested in the environment."

That's great.

So why on earth did you post a link to an organization that is primarily interested in supporting the DNC and its liberal agenda?

Originally posted by Meneldil:
Well, I intended to use their report as an opening to ask what people think about his policies; I guess I didn't make it clear enough I knew I was getting most of my information from liberal leaning people. Perhaps I have too much faith in their credentials, but I don't see any problem with listening to advice on environmental policy from a group primarily interested in the environment. You could be right- maybe they all hate Republicans, maybe this totally prevents them from admitting Bush could ever do right by the environment. Isn't it possible, though, that he's doing a crappy job, that they see this as a problem, and are speaking out because they think things should be changed?

Anyway, now we all know that the UoCS is a liberal group, which I didn't make clear enough before. People in general - what do you think about their charge that Bush is misusing science? Have you run across any other opinions, conflicting or agreeing?

That would be why. The environment is something that concerns me, but I'm lacking links to organizations primarily interested in supporting the RNC and its conservative agenda who say anything either way about Bush's environmental policies. As I mentioned above, I was looking for other opinions, either agreeing or disagreeing.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Meneldil:
Just because the environment is normally a Democrat's issue doesn't mean they couldn't endorse a Republican for doing a good job.

And when have they done that?

Note also, that partisanship doesn't always mean bias toward a particular party. Partisanship can also be in ideas and perspective. This group has a very stong ideological biases. They are entitled to them, but the rest of us are also entitled to take that fact into account when weighing their objectivity (or lack thereof).

[itai195]

Originally posted by Logic:
Absolutely not. Great scientists should force our leaders to take notice and listen to them. It doesn't do anyone any good if the scientists would just sit in their labs chatting to each others about their findings. They have to get the message all the way to the top, so that the leaders can make informed decisions.

Absolutely. Just because these scientists have overt political leanings doesn't mean their scientific arguments can be discounted off-hand. Participation by scientists in making, and criticizing, policy should be encouraged. Of course, I have always been of the opinion that environmental issues should largely be put above politics, but that's idealistic.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And when have they done that?

Note also, that partisanship doesn't always mean bias toward a particular party. Partisanship can also be in ideas and perspective. This group has a very stong ideological biases. They are entitled to them, but the rest of us are also entitled to take that fact into account when weighing their objectivity (or lack thereof).

Can you be partisan to a soft drink?

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And when have they done that?

Note also, that partisanship doesn't always mean bias toward a particular party. Partisanship can also be in ideas and perspective. This group has a very stong ideological biases. They are entitled to them, but the rest of us are also entitled to take that fact into account when weighing their objectivity (or lack thereof).

I don't know if they have - I'm not too old, after all, and my shoddy communist interweb is being difficult, so I haven't done much looking tonight. I've only ever heard of this group in the last few years, though I remember hearing they like Gore at some point a long time ago. I'll look into them more, but I wasn't intending to put them forward as 100% correct. I agree with their overall opinion that Bush is crap for the environment, but I don't know enough about the facts in their report yet to form opinions on each charge. I should have identified them as a left leaning group, but I didn't think of it, because they weren't really the focus of my questions - they just happened to put the topic in my mind.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And when have they done that?

Note also, that partisanship doesn't always mean bias toward a particular party. Partisanship can also be in ideas and perspective. This group has a very stong ideological biases. They are entitled to them, but the rest of us are also entitled to take that fact into account when weighing their objectivity (or lack thereof).

I guess, but if you look at the things they're complaining about, the most galling (to me) aren't even particularly ideological issues. The White House meddling with environmental reports, suppressing studies, replacing independent scientists with others who are tied to industry, etc. Perhaps this is the salient point:

Blind loyalists to the president will dismiss the UCS report because that organization often tilts left--never mind that some of those signatories are conservatives. They may brush off this magazine's reproofs the same way, as well as the regular salvos launched by California Representative Henry A. Waxman of the House Government Reform Committee [see Insights] and maybe even Arizona Senator John McCain's scrutiny for the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. But it is increasingly impossible to ignore that this White House disdains research that inconveniences it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Can you be partisan to a soft drink?

Absolutely. I'm a Diet Coke man. I detest Pepsi.

Of course, you can also be partisan toward certain hard drinks.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
"Union of Concerned Scientists criticizes Bush in report."

I'm shocked.

Of course Simey!

They are pulling all the stops out now.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
And while the Bush administration convieniently hides behind the 'liberal conspiracy' excuse - which apprently you and a good part of the American population buys, the findings are not checked and the environment continues to deteriorate.

It's not an excuse.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Absolutely. I'm a Diet Coke man. I detest Pepsi.

Of course, you can also be partisan toward certain hard drinks.

Ah yes. As non-native English speaker I have to be forgiven for taking probes for terms I'm not 100% sure how are defined.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Two allegorical stories come to mind. One is the one about the boy who cried wolf. The other is the one about chicken little. Think about it.

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Educated People criticize Bush in report

I'm not shocked.

Educated people criticize a lot of people. I am not shocked.

[deedar]

Here are some examples from the Scientific American Editors:

The Department of Health and Human Services deleted information from its Web sites that runs contrary to the president's preference for "abstinence only" sex education programs. The Office of Foreign Assets Control made it much more difficult for anyone from "hostile nations" to be published in the U.S., so some scientific journals will no longer consider submissions from them. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed overhauling peer review for funding of science that bears on environmental and health regulations--in effect, industry scientists would get to approve what research is conducted by the EPA.

How about discussing the contents and/or substance of the allegations rather than just dismissing them as being politically motivated?

[snickerdoodle]

Originally posted by Meneldil:
That would be why. The environment is something that concerns me, but I'm lacking links to organizations primarily interested in supporting the RNC and its conservative agenda who say anything either way about Bush's environmental policies. As I mentioned above, I was looking for other opinions, either agreeing or disagreeing.

Who cares about the environment?

[Logic]

Originally posted by snickerdoodle:
Who cares about the environment?

Human beings?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deedar:
[BHow about discussing the contents and/or substance of the allegations rather than just dismissing them as being politically motivated?b]

I'll try.

The Department of Health and Human Services deleted information from its Web sites that runs contrary to the president's preference for "abstinence only" sex education programs.

Okay. I don't personally think that abstenance only is a good policy. But what DHSS promotes on its web site is a public policy decision. This is not inappropriate.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control made it much more difficult for anyone from "hostile nations" to be published in the U.S., so some scientific journals will no longer consider submissions from them.

I had never heard of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, so I googled it. This is from the official web site:

Mission


The Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the US Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, and those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. OFAC acts under Presidential wartime and national emergency powers, as well as authority granted by specific legislation, to impose controls on transactions and freeze foreign assets under US jurisdiction. Many of the sanctions are based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope, and involve close cooperation with allied governments.

link

I don't see quite how this would implicate whether particular scientists would be published in US scientific journals. Maybe this might prevent those journals from paying money to government scientists working in sanctioned countries? If so, how is that a bad thing? Assuming the sanctions are legitimate (which is a policy decision, not a scientific one), then applying the sanctions is the correct thing to do.

Edit: take a look at this document. It appears to be what is being referred to. It's a letter advising some journals on what they can do within a certain statute dealing with the export of certain information that could be used for WMD for a handful of sanctioned countries. If tells them they can publish the papers, but cannot in their peer review pass back information that could be useful to develop WMD. From the the context it appears that this simply memorialized a statutory restriction that the journals already understand and have been complying with. See here.

In other words, this seems to be another of those issues that gets exaggerated when it passes from real life into politics.

The Office of Management and Budget has proposed overhauling peer review for funding of science that bears on environmental and health regulations--in effect, industry scientists would get to approve what research is conducted by the EPA.

I really know nothing about this. I don't know how the regs work now, I don't know how they would change anything if changed. If there was a link to the regulation and proposed regulation, then maybe I could figure it out enough to comment. Without that information, it's really not possible to comment unless I'm supposed to just take this editorial writer's word on it. Given what it is mostly based on (the Union of Concerned Scientists report), and given that the other two complaints seem to be at least exaggerated if not flat-out bogus, I'm inclined not to be too trusting.

[itai195]

Simey -- you responded to Scientific American's accusations, not those contained in the UCS report. I don't think the UCS report mentions the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Their complaint about the DHSS issue has more to do with distortion of scientific results than the policy itself:

The fact that the Bush administration ignores the scientific evidence, troubling though that is, is not the primary concern of this report. Rather, it is the fact that the Bush administration went
further by distorting science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants. In place of
such established measures, the Bush administration has required the government to track only participants� program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence only programs.

In addition to distorting performance measures, the Bush administration has suppressed other information at odds with its preferred policies. At the behest of higher-ups in the Bush administration, according to a source inside the CDC, the agency
was forced to discontinue a project called �Programs that Work,� which identified sex education programs found to be effective in scientific studies. All five of the programs identified in 2002 involved comprehensive sex education for teenagers and none were abstinence-only programs. In ending the project, the CDC removed all information about these programs from its website. One scientist, recently departed from a high-ranking position at CDC, recounts that, on one occasion, even top staff scientists at the agency were required by the administration to attend a day-long session purportedly devoted to the �science of abstinence.� As this source puts it, �out of the entire session, conducted by a nonscientist, the only thing resembling science was one study reportedly in progress and another not even begun.�50 Despite the absence of supporting data, this source and others contend, CDC scientists were regularly reminded to push the administration�s abstinence-only stance. As he puts it, �The effect was very chilling.�

What troubles me is the allegation that the White House isn't just making bad policies based on good science -- they're creating bad science to support their pre-conceived policies. If the White House wants to push abstinence-only policies, fine, but they're allegedly going several steps further than that to ensure that the scientific data supports their view.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
Simey -- you responded to Scientific American's accusations, not those contained in the UCS report. I don't think the UCS report mentions the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

I was asked to comment on those accusations in the Scientific American editorial. I did a couple of minutes googling and what there is out there indicates that the one is largely based on the other. The only one I was asked about that I could find anything about was the Office of Foreign Asset Control issue. It sounds like a complete red herring. The gap between accusation and reality indicates to me that there are indeed some ideologies at work here.

The sex education programs issue sounds to me like nothing more than Administration's changed, and with them the policies.

according to a source inside the CDC, the agency
was forced to discontinue a project called �Programs that Work,� which identified sex education programs found to be effective in scientific studies.

That sounds a lot like the kind of program that the Clinton Administration probably gave priority to. It ought not be surprising that the Bush Administration decided to shut that one down in favor of one that they approve of from a policy point of view. Obviously, that will bend some noses out of joint. Personally, I'd probably come out on the side of sex education. But policy is what Administrations are elected to do and government employees are not. This isn't a "science" issue -- it's social science. I.e policy.

I suspect the EPA issue is something similar. Who exactly was deciding who gets government funds under the old regs? I have a sneaky suspicion that somebody's interests are involved here. EPA has the reputation of being cozy with a number of non-governmental environmental groups and to have quite a revolving door with them as well. But without more information, that remains just a suspicion. But just so you know, I don't view industry with any particular hostility. If they are getting a balancing voice, my reaction is probably "it's about time."

The bottom line here is that when you are talking about government, there is no such thing as pure science. It's political to the core. It's therefore not surprising that scientists who lean left will be upset by an Administration that leans right. Especially when those scientists spent the previous 8 years under a different political regime. But if they want to spend taxpayer's money, then politics will come into it.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I was asked to comment on those accusations in the Scientific American editorial. I did a couple of minutes googling and what there is out there indicates that the one is largely based on the other. The only one I was asked about that I could find anything about was the Office of Foreign Asset Control issue. It sounds like a complete red herring. The gap between accusation and reality indicates to me that there are indeed some ideologies at work here.

Sure, I'm just pointing out that that was Scientific American's accusation, not UCS' as you implied.

As for the sex-education issue... It strikes me as unethical to create the policy first and the supporting science later, especially when major public health groups disagree with the policy. It doesn't matter if it's a policy issue or a science issue -- it's unethical to manipulate scientific data in order to support a policy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
Sure, I'm just pointing out that that was Scientific American's accusation, not UCS' as you implied.

As for the sex-education issue... It strikes me as unethical to create the policy first and the supporting science later, especially when major public health groups disagree with the policy. It doesn't matter if it's a policy issue or a science issue -- it's unethical to manipulate scientific data in order to support a policy.

Personally, I see absolutely no reason for the federal government to be involved in sex education at all -- whether it relies on condoms or just saying no. It sounds like a perfect issue to leave to the states where it belongs.

I also don't really give a damn about those kinds of studies. If you go in looking for a correlation promoting sex education, then the study will find that result. If you want it to come out the other way, no doubt you can make that happen too. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I just wish it wasn't on the taxpayer's dime.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Personally, I see absolutely no reason for the federal government to be involved in sex education at all -- whether it relies on condoms or just saying no. It sounds like a perfect issue to leave to the states where it belongs.

I can agree with that.

To me, this is an issue of ethics and integrity. I don't think government should fund scientific research at policy-making institutions because it creates an inevitable conflict of interests. I also don't think the CDC should be used as a shill for any administration's policies. Is it impossible to fund a federal agency that doesn't have a political agenda?

[snickerdoodle]

Originally posted by Logic:
Human beings?

Scientific guesses have no place in politics.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by snickerdoodle:
Scientific guesses have no place in politics.

Just as much as religious values.

Politics is about everything.