Republican Science and Favoritism

Science, American business, the military, and government work best when people are hired without regard to irrelevant issues such as party affiliation and when hard concrete facts are taken more seriously than ideological fantasies. You don't use forged documents as a basis of war when a number of experts make it clear the documents are forged. You don't look for the minority of scientists, often hired by oil companies, who say there is no global warming and ignore the overwhelming majority of scientists that say global warming is real and we've got a problem.

But let me back up a moment and refer to a couple of posts by Think Progress:

On April 28, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson told a real estate group that he had canceled a government contract because the contractor criticized President Bush. (If true, Jackson’s conduct appears to violate federal law.)

ThinkProgress has learned that HUD Inspector General Kenneth M. Donohue, Sr. has launched a review of Jackson’s conduct.

When I read the story, I immediately remembered that in the 1970s Nixon was accused of shaking down business people for contributions to his campaign and if they didn't cooperate, there was payback. Here's another part of the Jackson story from Think Progress:

...his spokeswoman, Dustee Tucker, has given conflicting explanations of the event. Let’s review —

May 3: Tucker tells the Dallas Business Journal that the contract Jackson was referring to in Dallas was an actual HUD “advertising contract with a minority publication.”

Early yesterday: Tucker tells the Dallas Morning News that Alphonso Jackson was referring to a real contract that was canceled. She even provided additional details of Jackson’s encounter with the contractor that Jackson did not mention during his April 28 speech: “When first asked about the episode Tuesday, Ms. Tucker spoke as if the contractor existed, saying he had approached Mr. Jackson ‘trashing, in a very aggressive way’ him and the president.”

Later yesterday: Tucker tells the Dallas Business Journal that Alphonso Jackson made the whole thing up...

There was a real contract, then there wasn't a real contract. In the Bush Administration, the truth is whatever version is publicized the most, preferably the latest version, though sometimes there are multiple choice options as in the reason for the war in Iraq or what Bush was doing the afternoon he received the famous August 6, 2001 memo warning of a possible attack by al Qaida (fishing, clearing brush or riding his bicycle).

We have an administration increasingly known for ignoring competent people and ignoring facts. The May issue of Scientific American, which prefers to stay out of politics, has an article on Bush's science policy, such as it is:

Tucked inside the current funding bill for the Department of Health and Human Services is a little-noticed provision that regulates how the department handles science and scientific advice. None of the money in the bill can be used "to disseminate scientific information that is deliberately false or misleading," the provision says. And the department cannot ask candidates for its scientific advisory panels to disclose their political affiliation or voting history.

The provision, inserted by Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, represents a tiny victory for critics of the Bush administration, who have become increasingly angry about what they see as the White House's misuse and abuse of science. They charge that the federal government widely dismisses or ignores scientific evidence or even, as one detractor puts it, manufactures uncertainty when the evidence challenges administration positions. Backers hope that, as the first legislation of its kind, the Durbin amendment will lead to broader efforts to regulate the use of science in this and future administrations.


When he introduced the provision, Durbin pointed to the example of William R. Miller, a professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of New Mexico who was denied a position on the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse after he said he had not voted for George W. Bush. "When the federal government seeks expert technical advice, it should look for the best possible expertise," Durbin said at the time. "It shouldn't limit itself to only those experts who voted for a particular candidate or who agree with the president's policy agenda."

I don't know if William R. Miller was the best person for the job or not, but we have seen a string of cronies and incompetents in the Bush Administration. It appears quite a few remain. Bush's 31% approval rating has much to do with Americans suspecting our president doesn't know what he's doing.