<< Chapter < Page Chapter >> Page >

Unsettling developments

In January 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists listed more than twenty incidents in which it claimed that the Bush administration had politicized science, including stacking advisory panels with ideological allies, doctoring reports that didn’t support its policies, and muzzling government scientists. David Malakoff, “Science Politics: White House Rebutes Charges It Has Politicized Science,” Science (April 9, 2004), 184-85. In February, sixty prominent scientists signed an accompanying statement accusing the administration of ignoring or distorting technical findings inconsistent with its political views. The White House fought back, with Marburger’s office issuing a twenty-page rebuttal. Ibid.

The charges persisted. In September, David Baltimore, a Nobel Laureate and President of the California Institute of Technology, wrote:

[A]s we approach the election, it is important to examine the most critical issues at the interface of science and politics in the determination of public policy. And on several of these issues, a new pattern of behavior by the administration is becoming clear. The sequence is as follows: A government position is taken on a matter of scientific importance; policy directions are announced and scientific justifications for those policies are offered; strong objections from scientists follow; the scientific rationale is then abandoned or changed, but the policies based on that science remain, stuck in the same place. David Baltimore, “Science and the Bush Administration,” Science (September 24, 2004), 1873-74.

Immediately following Bush’s narrow reelection, the Federation of American Scientists presented a paper making the case for an effective presidential science advisory system and urging Bush to move decisively in that direction. Federation of American Scientists, Flying Blind: The Rise, Fall, and Possible Resurrection of Science Policy Advice in the United States (Cambridge, MA: Federation of American Scientists, December 2004). The paper also reviewed the status of science advice throughout the executive branch, with a focus on the National Science Board—by law, the governing body of the National Science Foundation—arguing that such advisory bodies, while important, were no substitute for a strong presidential system. It also urged the administration to take greater advantage of the capabilities of the U.S. National Academies National Academies refers collectively to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. to provide well-reasoned scientific advice. Finally, it recommended that the Congress recognize the need for such advice and strengthen those bodies that provide it.

Innovate america

Innovate America , a report of the National Innovation Initiative of the Council on Competitiveness, was made public in September 2004. Release of the report was followed by an Innovation Summit held in Washington on December 15, 2004. Council on Competitiveness, Innovate America: National Innovation Initiative Summit and Report (Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness, 2005). The Initiative defined innovation as “the intersection of invention and insight, leading to the creation of social and economic value.” It grouped its recommendations under three headings:

Get Jobilize Job Search Mobile App in your pocket Now!

Get it on Google Play Download on the App Store Now




Source:  OpenStax, A history of federal science policy from the new deal to the present. OpenStax CNX. Jun 26, 2010 Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11210/1.2
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Notification Switch

Would you like to follow the 'A history of federal science policy from the new deal to the present' conversation and receive update notifications?

Ask