Science vs. Bush

I really try to keep politics out of this blog. But we're existing in times when that's difficult to do. Especially when science is abused for political gain:

More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

The sweeping accusations were later discussed in a conference call organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. On Wednesday, the organization also issued a 38-page report detailing its accusations.

The two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

''Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systemically nor on so wide a front,'' the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had ''misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.''

You can read this quote in context in today's New York Times. What really worries me, though, is the implication that it's almost acceptable that "other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices".

Maybe that's why I take what I do more seriously than I should.