|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 03/24/2004 : 11:23:20
|
(While this ties in heavily with Robb's thread about global warming, I wanted to start a new thread here.)
After reading Chris Mooney's latest column, The New Science Wars, I wondered to myself if there's ever a time when governmental manipulation of scientific data and/or conclusions is warranted. Now, I wonder it aloud to SFN readers.
The only justifications I could come up with were:
- Matters of national security: for example, the President's Science Advisor simply lying to the press about a new scientific breakthrough (death rays, say) in order to keep secret for as long as possible the fact that America has such weapons.
- In times of war: while I understand this is national security, again, it's different because of an assumption of truly dire need. For example, let's say medical researchers learn that proximity to a particular kind of plastic increases risk of fatal cancer to near 95% (within a lifetime, not within a week of exposure). Turns out, the military uses this sort of plastic in almost every piece of gear. With our troops actively engaged in battles, and thus unable to simply drop their stuff and get it replaced, would the administration be justified in squashing the findings until peacetime?
Obviously, things like arguing that global warming isn't happening in order to appease big corporate polluters don't fall into either of the above categories, and I can't see how any administration could justify ignoring the vast weight of the data, knowing it exists, for mere political gain.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 03/24/2004 : 12:09:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
(While this ties in heavily with Robb's thread about global warming, I wanted to start a new thread here.)
After reading Chris Mooney's latest column, The New Science Wars, I wondered to myself if there's ever a time when governmental manipulation of scientific data and/or conclusions is warranted. Now, I wonder it aloud to SFN readers.
The only justifications I could come up with were:
- Matters of national security: for example, the President's Science Advisor simply lying to the press about a new scientific breakthrough (death rays, say) in order to keep secret for as long as possible the fact that America has such weapons.
- In times of war: while I understand this is national security, again, it's different because of an assumption of truly dire need. For example, let's say medical researchers learn that proximity to a particular kind of plastic increases risk of fatal cancer to near 95% (within a lifetime, not within a week of exposure). Turns out, the military uses this sort of plastic in almost every piece of gear. With our troops actively engaged in battles, and thus unable to simply drop their stuff and get it replaced, would the administration be justified in squashing the findings until peacetime?
Obviously, things like arguing that global warming isn't happening in order to appease big corporate polluters don't fall into either of the above categories, and I can't see how any administration could justify ignoring the vast weight of the data, knowing it exists, for mere political gain.
Is there ever a time where the government should manipulate scientific data.
In a word, no.
I would not lump practical applications of scientific findings into the scientific data set. In the 50's, Russian scientists discovered that a certian configuration of an aircraft body greatly reduced it's radar signature. It was impractical to test it due to technology constraints. As the Soviet government didn't take the research seriously, they allowed the scientists to publish their findings for peer review. It was accepted quietly. Later, while the US was looking to develop a stealth aircraft, they stumbled on the Russian published study. Using the study's results and methodology (complete with Russian language coversheet as to give the authors due credit), the US developed the F-117A Nighthawk program. (Stealth Fighter)
If medical researchers find out that a particular item, no matter how minor, has serious health implications, they have a responsibility to publish. Even if it is financially inconvienient to the armed services. It still could be in common usage in the private sector and the public safety cannot be subserviant to the financial convienince of the government.
I can see where formulae for new chemical explosives could be deemed a national security issue, but this is practical application work, not discovery work. If scientists discover that carbon mixed in a certian proportion to nitric acids and molybdenum produce a lifting effect similar to the gravity repulors in science fiction, the government has no vested interest in supressing the findings. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 12:29:34 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
If medical researchers find out that a particular item, no matter how minor, has serious health implications, they have a responsibility to publish. Even if it is financially inconvienient to the armed services. It still could be in common usage in the private sector and the public safety cannot be subserviant to the financial convienince of the government.
What if it meant losing Washington (state), Montana, and Wisconsin to invading Canadians?
Now, I understand that the researchers have a responsibility to publish, no matter what, but could, in such a far-out case, the government "feel" justified, for example, in jailing the researchers in order to prevent publication? And once the Canadians have been repelled, setting them free and conceding the unlawful imprisonment lawsuit that would inevitably follow?
Doesn't the government also have a responsibility to protect the northerners from blubber-eating hoards from the Yukon?  I'm trying to figure out if there is, indeed, a balancing of considerations which may need to be taken into account here, or if your blanket "no" is more correct. I will grant that "no" is going to be the moral and ethical answer most of the time, which is why my hypotheticals are admittedly contrived and extreme. I'm trying to find out if there is a situation in which the answer might be "yes." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 14:06:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
If medical researchers find out that a particular item, no matter how minor, has serious health implications, they have a responsibility to publish. Even if it is financially inconvienient to the armed services. It still could be in common usage in the private sector and the public safety cannot be subserviant to the financial convienince of the government.
What if it meant losing Washington (state), Montana, and Wisconsin to invading Canadians?
Now, I understand that the researchers have a responsibility to publish, no matter what, but could, in such a far-out case, the government "feel" justified, for example, in jailing the researchers in order to prevent publication? And once the Canadians have been repelled, setting them free and conceding the unlawful imprisonment lawsuit that would inevitably follow?
Doesn't the government also have a responsibility to protect the northerners from blubber-eating hoards from the Yukon? I'm trying to figure out if there is, indeed, a balancing of considerations which may need to be taken into account here, or if your blanket "no" is more correct. I will grant that "no" is going to be the moral and ethical answer most of the time, which is why my hypotheticals are admittedly contrived and extreme. I'm trying to find out if there is a situation in which the answer might be "yes."
It being financially inconvienient to the government would not mean that said items are removed from the field immediately. Oftentimes, when such problems are discovered, they are phased out or a replacement schedule is drawn up. At no time, barring failures which would directly impact troop effectiveness, would the armed forces of the US be comprimised enough to cause a loss to the Snowy Devils of the North, eh. (joke, folks)
I cannot think of a single situation where such a discovery would justify such an action from the government. The only really extreme one I can think of is "there is a meteor heading towards earth that could wipe out all life as we know it and we can't stop it so why cause panic?" Even then, it isn't likely that amateurs wouldn't proclaim it from the highest mountain top. Action by the government, at that point, is futile and punitive. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
