That's among the questions a new high-powered group in Washington, D.C., will consider as it launches the first major nonpartisan effort to study how the government ought to use scientific information to make decisions. "We will be looking at what policymakers can do that is legitimate and what is beyond the pale," says David Goldston, an organizer for the 13-member panel. They'll meet for the first time next month and hope to release their one-and-only report in June.
Goldston says the group is not trying "to dissect what the Bush Administration has done right or wrong" in the consideration of scientific information for decision-making. Instead, it will examine federal advisory boards, conflict-of-interest policies, how different agencies consider scientific advice, and what role scientists should play in decisions by regulatory agencies such as the FDA or EPA.
So far, most of the work on the topic has been by journalists or the left-leaning nonprofit group Union of Concerned Scientists, whose reports have criticized the Bush Administration on issues including the editing of federal scientific reports and the pressure that government scientists may encounter as they seek to influence policy or speak to reporters about their findings. But this group includes former Bush Administration officials, former Science Committee chair Sherry Boehlert, former Science magazine editor-in-chief Don Kennedy, industrial officials, academics, and even, yes, the UCS, represented by its president, Kevin Knobloch.
Goldston, a former staff director for the House Science and Technology Committee, says the effort is sponsored by the Packard and Hewlett foundations as well as ExxonMobil and is run out of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a relatively new Washington group.
—Eli Kintisch
.
Different people have got lots of deals but despite of it they still have to compose the online essay. But at this moment they should not worry about it, simply because they could take your great idea close to this good post as a sample for papers writing. Other way, that seems to be available to visit a buy essay service to buy the custom term papers. Furthermore, it is very comfortable.
Anything worth having is worth cheating for. W. C. Fields
Policy people will fund scientists and they are smart enough to sing their tune. Any publicly funded research should make the data publicly, electronically available.
And nor should we wish it...
I believe in the separation of Church and State, so therefore I think that the religion of science should be held to the same standards as all others.
Keep it out.
Should they use data, evidence, and educated opinion to formulate the basis of policy... absolutely, but that is not science. That is logic.
From a fundamental perspective, science is an amoral religion whereas the entire point of government is to preserve social morality; so including scientific viewpoints as the basis of policy is no more sound than using circumstantial evidence to support flawed policies, or asking god to save us from ourselves.
Wow, now that is some pretty cool stuff!!!
Wow, now that is some pretty cool stuff...
Scientists are not always correct or immune from corruption.
"We used to think the world was flat. Many scientists agreed on this fact. Until disproved of course."
It's been 2400 years since it was generally accepted that the Earth was flat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
You need to know the difference between science and politics. In science you don't commit to anything until you're as certain as you can be. In politics you have to make a decision about what to do now, based on what information you have (or don't have) now. Politicians may be legitimate in acting to avoid a risk that science has yet to prove exists. Scientists need to learn to accept this.
Politicians should defer to the source of data - whether it be scientists, think tanks, etc.; as long as there is no corporate bias involved - this is what impacts politics and policies everyday; and ultimately consumers.
Opps, I should check my facts before spewing them :) Sorry for the incorrect information about Volcano's.
But I do refer you to the following sites about global warming.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/14/questioning-ocean-warming/
http://glowarmers.blogspot.com/2007/06/does-co2-really-cause-global-warming.html
Back on topic. Despite this particular topic of global warming. We used to think the world was flat. Many scientists agreed on this fact. Until disproved of course.
Filthy...Richmond
And nor should we wish it.
Scientists and Generals are not equipped to lead our nation - nor do they wish to.
This is one that should be discussed with caution
That a person is a scientist does not make him an expert in all things. More often than not he is an expert in one thing.
I think you should let people do what they are best trained for. Government decisions should be made by polititians, that's why we elected them. If there is any matter that needs scientific consultation, then by all means consult with the top scientists in the relevant area
The above comment about volcanoes is wrong:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72
Wow, now that is some pretty cool stuff.
jess
www.privacy-tools.at.tc
As long as this is a democracy, unelected officials should not be allowed to mandate policy. Besides, do you really think scientists are any more immune to corruption than politicians?
Science or should I say Scientists do not always agree and therefore are not always correct. Just as in the case with global warming. Some would argue that the majority of scientist believe C02 is to blame for global warming and therefore the government should act on the matter. However some very respectable scientists disagree with the source, and even more disagree that it is happening at all. For instance 1 volcanic eruption produces more C02 then Humans in the last 100 years and they erupt all the time! So Politics should weigh what scientists say with a skeptics eye.
I checked out your blog, very interesting, thank you for looking at my blog .
While the question "Should politicians defer to scientists" is an important one, the work of the Scientific Integrity Program of the Union of Concerned Scientists focuses on those instances in which, statute, rule or regulation has already determined that a decision shall be science-based and politics interfere, a very different question. Our scientist statement, signed by over 15,000 scientists puts it this way "Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences." We have documented the abuse of legally required science-based decisionmaking through our surveys of thousands of federal scientists and in our A to Z Guide to political interference in science found at www.ucsusa.org/atoz. This is an important distinction between a critical intellectual dialogue and federal scientists having their legally mandated work interfered with and the consequences of that interference for the health and safety of us all.