Politicization of science

The politicization of science occurs when governments, businesses, and lobby groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research, especially when this influence retards the progress of science.

Global warming and ozone depletion

Frederick Seitz charges that politicization makes it virtually impossible for scientists to get funding to pursue hypotheses which run counter to prevailing ideas about ozone depletion.

"Here is an example. I'd love to know more facts about halogen compounds that come out of volcanoes. If I went to a federal agency and asked to get funded for such a study, they would probably throw me out. Why? Because looking at this question assumes the need to look further into issues related to possible sources of presumed depletion of ozone. It would also suggest that the concept that man-made CFCs are the greatest threat to the ozone layer may not tell the whole story." [1] (http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=21)

However, Seitz' example is purely hypothetical — he thinks his proposal would "probably" be thrown out, but advances no instances of research proposals that have been thrown out. Also, climate skeptics like Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Sallie Baliunas continue to receive public funding.

Advocates with views similar to Seitz's charge that political and environmental groups have deliberately created the notion that the "science is settled", while their critics say this is meaningless – exactly what science is supposed to be settled?

Media critics Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton, for example, claim that Seitz's allegation does not take into account that business interests in the United States, where the consensus on global warming and ozone depletion is probably weakest, have deliberately created the notion that the science is "not settled", and have convinced governments to support that line. They wrote in the 1998 article "The PR Plot To Overheat The Earth" (Earth Island Journal):

In 1991, a US corporate coalition including the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electrical Institute created a public relations front called the "Information Council for the Environment" (ICE). ICE launched a $500,000 advertising and PR blitz to, in ICE's own words, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."

(...)

To boost its credibility, ICE created a Scientific Advisory Panel that featured Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia. Michaels has been the leading scientific naysayer on global warming.

The industry's propaganda campaign also created a bevy of other front groups. The group currently leading the charge is the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a creation of the Burson-Marsteller PR firm. From its founding in 1989 until the summer of 1997, GCC operated out of the offices of the National Association of Manufacturers. Its members include Amoco, the American Forest & Paper Association, American Petroleum Institute, Shell Oil, Texaco, Chevron, Chrysler, the US Chamber of Commerce, Exxon, General Motors, Ford Motor, and more than 40 other corporations and trade associations. [2] (http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/spring98/sp98a_fe.htm)

Burton and Rampton charge that the claims about the "politicization of science" regarding global warming are part of a deliberately engineered public relations campaign to reduce the impact any international treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, might have on the business interests sponsoring the campaigns.

The "Waxman report"

In the United States, Democratic Congressman Henry A. Waxman and the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee have released a report in August 2003 which concluded that the administration of George W. Bush has politicized science in many areas and appointed key decision makers who shared the administration position on major issues. The issues analyzed in the report are:

• sex education based on sexual abstinence
  • The report charges that the administration has modified performance measures for abstinence-based programs to make them look effective. It also finds that the Bush administration appointed a prominent advocate of abstinence-only programs, Dr. Joe McIlhaney, to the Advisory Committee to the CDC’s Director. It claims that information about comprehensive sex education was removed from the website of the Center for Disease Control.
• agricultural pollution
• the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
• breast cancer
  • The report finds that a National Cancer Institute website has been changed to reflect the administration view that there may be a risk of breast cancer associated with abortions. The website was updated after protests and now holds that no such risk has been found in recent, well-designed studies.
• condoms
  • The report refers to changes in the tone of US government websites regarding the safety of condoms, and to the policy that condoms lead to underage sex and should therefore not be recommended, which the Bush administration has advocated on an international level.
• drinking water
• drug use
• education policy
• environmental health
• food safety
• global warming
• HIV/AIDS
• lead poisoning
• missile defense
• oil and gas
• prescription drug advertising
• reproductive health
• stem cell research
• wetlands
• workplace safety
• the Yellowstone National Park

External link

• Politics & Science: Investigating the Bush Administration's Promotion of Ideology Over Science (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/). Website by US Congressman Henry Waxman and the Government Reform Committee.