19 Dec 2006 (updated 19 Dec 2006 at 15:23 UTC)
»
The other day there was an article about how the White House is
censoring the USGS (as posted on Slashdot).
As a matter of course, Slashdot posters used this as
another reason to fling mud at the Bush Administration,
using arguments such as:
From the article: "This is not about stifling or
suppressing our science, or politicizing our science in
any way,'' Barbara Wainman, the agency's director of
communications, said Wednesday. "I don't have approval
authority. What it was designed to do is to improve our
product flow.''
They aren't even trying to justify their
actions
anymore.
They're just filtering science from public view, and
insisting that it is improvement.
Ryan Fenton
This is pretty typical Left Wing anti-Republican
propoganda. Remember: anyone who wants to see a conspiracy
will see a conspiracy. Lets read the article carefully,
here.
From the article:
The Bush administration, as well as the
Clinton administration before it, has been criticized over
scientific integrity issues. In 2002, the USGS was forced
to reverse course after warning that oil and gas drilling
in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the
Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report
followed, this time saying the caribou would not be
affected.
This points out that in the past, there were data
integrity issues coming from the USGS's reports (in this
case from the Fish and Wildlife Department of the USGS).
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this is a good
reason for reform?
I'd like to ask: what was the Fish and Wildlife
Department doing claiming that oil and gas drilling would
harm wildlife in the area at all? That's not what the
USGS's reports are for. The USGS is for reporting the
facts, not sensationalist propoganda. What was reported
was not objective, it was opinion.
A little searching provides us with the following link
to the USGS's
Guidelines for Ensuring Quality of Information.
Section III states:
The USGS provides unbiased, objective scientific
information upon which other entities may base judgments.
So again, I ask, backed by the above criteria, why was
the Fish and Wildlife Department making judgements
about what could potentially happen? This is not the job
of the USGS, as stated clearly above, it is the job of
third parties who acquire data provided by the USGS.
The purpose of this policy change is to prevent the
pushing of political agendas within USGS reports which has
no business in scientific reports in the first place.
Update: The USGS responds to the sensationalism surrounding
their new policy changes.
