A report in today’s New York Times should leave all of us breathless–even if we’ve seen too many similar stories before.
It’s so common that it is almost not even news when a noted scientist employed (or once employed) by the U.S. government (i.e., we the citizens) tells how he or she was muzzled because of findings that conflict with the Bush administration’s agenda.
This time, it is former U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona, who testified before Congress that he was told to play down a number of topics that concern public health. I won’t mention the most controversial ones, because one item sticks out as particularly damaging
to public health. To quote the Times:
Top administration officials delayed for years and attempted to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand tobacco smoke, he said in sworn testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
That should leave us all, literally, breathless. Then, to make matters worse:
He was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of every speech he gave, Dr. Carmona said. He was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings, at least one of which included Karl Rove, the president’s senior political adviser, he said.
And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to the Kennedy family.
“I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?’ ” Dr. Carmona said.
In other words, the person in charge of the nation’s health, a person we expect to be free of political pressure in order to speak out on crucial issues, was expected to apply political tests to scientific findings and to take a partisan political role.
And lest you think this blog entry is motivated by my own partisanship, consider the following from the
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001422.html>Washington Post report on the same hearing:
[C. Everett] Koop, who served as surgeon general under President Ronald Reagan, spoke out on AIDS, despite political pressure not to do so. He said Reagan was pressured to fire him every day — but he did not.
“If he had not been the kind of person he was, I would not be here today,” Koop said.
I, for one, will breathe much more easily when we have an administration in Washington that respects science–no matter what party the President comes from.
Ed Piman,
Let’s not let political beliefs interfere with rational thought. Three thousand died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11 when 15 hijackers deliberately crashed three airplanes into their targets. Their goal was to do a lot of sensational damage to America, to amplify the power of 15 men in hurting America. A horrific act, but which must be to put into perspective, unless one is trying to sensationalize it.
Three thousand deaths are as many died in the Iraq war between March 2003 through January 2007. Three thousand Americans die of AIDS every two months. Three thousand Americans die in car crashes every month. Three thousand Americans die every 10 days from “being obese” (according to the CDC and NCI). Three thousand Americans die every 3 days from smoking-related causes.
So when there are as many deaths every 10 days due to “being obese”, as happened due to terrorist activities in the US in the last 7 years, can you, Ed, admit that the surgeon general has a legitimate and science-based reason for focusing on obesity problems in the US?
Three thousand Americans die every twelve hours. Let’s try not to dramatize or politicize the terrorist attacks, Ed.
The pot calls the kettle black. Here’s CBS news quoting Carmona:
—
“Obesity is the terror within,” Richard Carmona said during a lecture at the University of South Carolina. “Unless we do something about it, the magnitude of the dilemma will dwarf 9-11 or any other terrorist attempt.”
—
Right. No politics there. The left is every bit as willing to politicize science as is the right, if not more so, as the cult of anthropogenic climate change has taken pains to demonstrate. As long as science dines at the government trough, politics is inevitable.
Guys like Mike will never grasp that there actually is a difference between science and politics. For all the “conservative” blather these guys hide behind they’re the worst kind of post-modernists. There’s no real truth out there to be found, just “texts” and “discourse” and “stories” and yours is as good as mine.
In response to Mike:
From the Surgeon General’s website:
The Surgeon General serves as America’s chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury. The Surgeon General is appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate for a 4-year term of office. In carrying out all responsibilities, the Surgeon General reports to the Assistant Secretary for Health, who is the principal advisor to the Secretary on public health and scientific issues.
The Office of the Surgeon General, under the direction of the Surgeon General, oversees the operations of the 6,000-member Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service and provides support for the Surgeon General in the accomplishment of his other duties. The Office is part of the Office of Public Health and Science in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
So, yes the Surgeon General is appointed by the President, but the term overlaps administrations.
That’s the second sentence above. The first and third sentences indicate that the position’s main duties are not political, but scientific.
Surgeons General are often controversial, but they also need to be independent of political pressure to assure the public health. The office is too important to politicize, and it traditionally has been treated as such.
Compare Koop’s statement with Carmona’s, and you’ll understand why this is so regrettable.
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Fred,
So let me get this straight. A political appointee is complaining that he was pressured to promote certain positions that were consistent with the position of the politician that appointed him? How can we ever trust what a scientist who was appointed by a politician and or political body states publicly?
Now lets be fair and apply this same litmus test to the IPCC as well.
Take care!
Mike