|
|
| Political Science |
|
|
| By Ian Berke | ||||||
| April 2004 | Editorials | |||||
Page 3 of 3 In recent news, there have been allegations of manipulation of the Bioethics Council to support the administration’s no-new embryonic stem cell research policy. Two members of the panel that support the creation and use of new human embryonic stem cell lines have recently been replaced with those that do not, heavily biasing the committee’s viewpoint. Although one of these replacements was made due to retirement, Professor Elizabeth Blackburn (Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at UCSF) claims she was dismissed for her support of embryonic stem cell research. In an article appearing in PLoS, coauthored by a current member of the Bioethics Council, Dr. Blackburn points out how two major reports from the committee misrepresented scientific study of stem cells and aging. The reports perpetuate myths including misrepresenting the scientific study of aging as a “search for immortality” and raising the specter of designer babies from the study of human genetics and development. Taken individually, the incidents above and in the reports may not seem as drastic intrusions into science. The power of these reports is that they have assembled these cases in a document and identify a pattern of censorship, distortion, and manipulation. If the scientific process continues to be politicized and abused, what will happen to the scientific community? It is possible that talented scientists in government agencies such as the FDA, EPA and CDC will leave for freer scientific pastures. If scientific myths and distortions are propagated to the public, will society become disillusioned with science? Has it already? All science is shaped in some manner by the society we live in. The funding we depend on for our passion and livelihoods is set by society’s agenda. Even the make-up and diversity of our labs is shaped by pressures within society. That is why it is of utmost importance for us as scientists to be aware of how politics and society can shape and influence science, and how we in turn can shape society. After Dr. Satcher’s Insight lecture, I attended a dinner in which he expanded on some of the problems facing science and public policy. When asked the best way to combat these difficulties, he responded, “Education, Motivation, Mobilization…the most effective people at change..[such as] Martin Luther King [Jr.]…were able to educate, motivate and mobilize people.” Stay aware of how science is treated and presented in the public arena; and talk to your peers, scientist and layman, about these issues. The box on page 3 contains a list of sources for information and some groups that organize actions for change. References and Notable Articles:Blackburn and Rowley 2004. Reason as Our Guide. PLoS 2(4) Fleischer, Ari. White house press briefing, June 29, 2001 The response to Dr. Satcher’s 2001 Report on Sexual Health Holden, 2004. Researchers Blast U.S. Bioethics Panel Shuffle, Science, 303(5663):1447 Kennedy, Robert F. Jr., 2004. The Junk Science of George W. Bush. The Nation 2/19/2004. Malakoff 2004. White House Denies Playing Politics With Science. Science, 303(5663):1446-1447 *Rep. Henry Waxman 2003. Politics and the Bush Administration. *Union of Concerned Scientists 2004. Scientific Integrity in Policymaking. * – major sources for this article Web Links:
Related Articles:
|
||||||