Download 26 Jul 2003

MODERN TIMES
by Art Hobson
[email protected]
A Zealous White House
In this space two weeks ago I discussed ideology versus rationality, and the
role of ideology in the Bush administration’s zealous promotion of the Iraq
invasion. Zealous promotion is characteristic of this administration’s approach to
most issues. Here are several examples.
Regardless of massive scientific evidence to the contrary, this administration
seems ideologically convinced that human-caused global warming is not a
threat. Following his inauguration, Bush joined the fossil-fuel industry’s campaign
against James Watson’s re-election as chair of the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the large body of scientists that has evaluated global warming
research. Watson, a respected atmospheric chemist and chief scientist of the World
Bank, had successfully chaired the IPCC for five years. During Watson’s tenure, the
IPCC confirmed that global warming is occurring, that it is at least partly caused by
humans, and that aggressive action against fossil fuel emissions is essential. Fossil
fuel interests, who have long seen Watson as a foe, successfully urged Bush to launch
an intense international lobbying campaign that unseated Watson.
According to Watson, the IPCC’s message that the world can and should
reduce fossil fuel emissions “is not the message, for whatever reason, that the Bush
administration wanted to hear.” Elliot Diringer of the Pew Center for Climate Change
put it more bluntly: “Dr. Watson is a very credible voice for stronger action on
climate change, so it’s not all that surprising that the Bush administration didn’t want
to renominate him.”
Recently, the National Academy of Sciences independently assessed the
administration’s own plans for studying global warming. The scientists concluded
that those plans lack “a guiding vision, executable goals, and clear criteria.” In short,
it lacks the characteristics needed to do good science.
In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency compiled a report, submitted to
the United Nations, that agreed with the IPCC’s conclusion that global warming is a
real threat. Despite the report’s origin within his own administration, Bush
commented dismissively that “I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,” and that
he still opposes the Kyoto Treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The White House tinkered with a 2003 EPA environmental report, deleting
scientific discussions of the impacts of global warming, and inserting an unwarranted
(according to the scientists who wrote the report) emphasis on uncertainties. These
alterations were so unscientific that the EPA decided to just delete the report’s entire
section on global warming.
In March of 2001, Bush reversed a campaign commitment to regulate fossil
fuel emissions from power plants, and announced that the Kyoto Treaty is no longer
acceptable to the United States. Both moves flew in the face of massive
evidence. The scientific and international communities were outraged. An open letter
to Bush from Jimmy Carter, John Glenn, and several noted scientists stated that “No
challenge we face is more momentous than global climate change. …We urge you to
develop a plan to reduce U.S. production of greenhouse gases.” But the only plan
forthcoming actually increases U.S. production of greenhouse gases.
Another example of administration zealousness is the decision to commit
billions of dollars to deploying a missile defense system that is known to be incapable
of defending the nation. In an unsuccessful attempt to prevent such a commitment,
the American Physical Society passed a resolution calling on the government to delay
deployment until the system was demonstrated to be workable against realistic
threats. The system being deployed is known to have a success rate of 40 percent at
best. This is far from sufficient to protect the nation, since even one nuclear missile
that penetrates the system can destroy a large city. We would not accept such a
failure rate in the private sector. What if, for example, a nuclear reactor manufacturer
installed reactors that catastrophically failed 60 percent of the time?
There’s more. The Department of Health and Human Services disbanded or
stacked five committees in order (according to a DHHS spokesperson) “to hear
preferentially from experts who share the president’s philosophical
sensibilities.” Committees on human research, environmental health, workplace
injuries, and others were stacked with scientists long affiliated with polluting
industries.
The administration is obsessive about abortion and sex. For example, America
cast a lone vote last year against a long-standing U.N. resolution on population
because Bush objected to the terms “reproductive health services” and “reproductive
rights.”
The White House tinkered with a National Cancer Institute’s website, which
formerly stated that the best studies showed “no association between abortion and
breast cancer.” The statement was altered to say that the evidence was
inconclusive. Fortunately, this alteration was canceled when a scientific review panel
insisted that the original language, which correctly reflects current research, be
reinstated. Similarly, the web page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
which formerly pointed to studies showing that education on condom use did not lead
to increased sexual activity, now omits this discussion.
The White House is intensifying its scrutiny of sensitive research topics. The
National Institutes of Health has warned researchers to cleanse terms such as
“transgender, prostitutes, needle exchange, abortion, condom effectiveness, men who
have sex with men” and “commercial sex workers” from grant applications and
reports.
Years ago, the great physicist Max Born stated that “the belief in a single truth
and in being the possessor thereof is the root cause of all evil in the world.” We see
these words borne out today in the worldwide devastation wrought by rigid ideologies
of all sorts. The Bush administration follows a similar anti-rational and ideological
path.