This isn't something that has happened overnight. It has been going on
a very long time on both sides of the aisle. When government grant
(tax) money is used for science, politics are always going to be
involved in the process. But how else are we to do pure science? It's
interesting how a scientist being paid to find something will focus on
whatever supports his conclusions and ignore anything that opposes it no
matter what. Perhaps he wants to keep the grant money coming in for as
long as possible?
A couple of books that sheds light on this sort of thing:
Science Under Seige by Michael Fumento
Why People Believe Strange Things by ?-forgot his name.
The New Inquisition by Robert Anton Wilson
73, de ed -K0iL
-----Original Message-----
From: rfi-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:22 AM
To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [RFI] More Thoughts on BPL
On Mon, 24 May 2004 02:33:06 -0400, Pete Smith wrote:
>What
>should be immensely disquieting to us all is that the FCC's NPRM
>demonstrates such a profound lack of understanding of the technical
issues.
There was an excellent (and frightening) piece on the NPR program "This
American Life" this week that addressed the appointments of members to a
science advisory panel on lead poisoning. I didn hear all of it (I was
running in and out of the house starting my grill to cook some steaks),
but I
did hear the summary.
This is the committee that advises the government on how stringent the
regulations ought to be on lead in our environment. The science on it is
well
developed and mature, and shows that children have serious brain damage
by
lead in old buildings, but industry groups with vested interests have
managed
to prevent regulations from being tightened.
The essence of the piece was that:
1) People were appointed based on their politcial philosophy and
afilliation
rather than their knowledge of science
2) There was a long time member of the committee with serious science
credentials who had served through multiple administrations. He
observed, in
an interview, that it was not always that way, and that in previous
admninstrations real scientific credentials were far more important.
3) Real scientific knowledge is not a matter of opinion to be decided
upon by
popular vote, but rather the result of disciplined study and peer review
over
many years. Within the committee, the positions of industry pressure
groups,
as articulated by those non-technical members of the committee, were
taken as
having real value, while the scientist, refuting those positions by
stating
the work of other real scientists, was just another voice (and a
minority
one).
Does any of this sound familiar? I think the only real difference is
that
the FCC was filled with non-technical people long ago.
It may be possible to hear this piece on line at npr.org if you are
interested. And you shiould be!
Jim Brown K9YC
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|