"
Making the grade. Democrats ranked much higher than Republicans did in a controversial analysis of 30 science-related votes in the House'' was the subtitle on Figure 3 in Science 273, p 1793 (1996) in the article "Congressional Scorecard Sparks Furor'' by A. Lawler.Calling itself "Science-Watch Services Inc.'' and referred to by
Science as "a group of distinguished scientists,'' a gaggle of tax-spenders released their "scorecard'' of the Members of the House of Representatives based on 30 floor votes during the 104th Congress. This scorecard was released just six weeks before the November 1996 election and published by Science five weeks before the election.The "controversy'' and "furor'' referred to by
Science has nothing to do with the scorecard. The worry is that Republicans might retain control of the House of Representatives, and their help may be needed to fill the porkbarrel during coming years.From Global Warming to the ban of CFC refrigerants, from DDT to Endangered Species, and from Missile Defense to nuclear power, if you are wondering why the United States seems to continually pursue public policies that are the opposite of those that would be expected -based on rational scientific data and evaluations - and why there are always sufficient "scientists'' and prestigious scientific publications available to propagate the erroneous ideas upon which these wrong-headed policies are based, you need look no further than Figure 3.
"Pro-science,'' to the horde of non-defense "researchers'' funded each year by $33 billion of your tax dollars, means voting more money for the research porkbarrel and "anti-science'' means voting for less.
For the spenders, pro-science also means bias and sometimes outright lying about scientific matters if their big-spending political friends are in need of support; it means avoiding politically incorrect experiments that might produce data contrary to the policies of these big spenders; and it means producing blizzards of research papers with politically correct biases in order to keep the money flowing in the authors' directions. The competition is not for better science, it is for science that more nearly conforms to the desires of those who hold the purse strings. Also, even among honest scientists, it means keeping quiet about one's misgivings about the activities of colleagues which may affect the flow of money.
If this $33 billion dollar annual porkbarrel were removed from the backs of the American taxpayers, the United States would be richer by far more than this amount.
Science would be healthier if it were purged of second-rate people who are only there as a result of money instead of ability. First-rate scientists would be free to pursue their work rather than being trapped in offices with word proces
sors pandering to government bureaucrats. The endowments of Ameri-can academic institutions and private capital would fund at least half of our current scientific establishment - the better half - and that half, freed of politics, could return its attention to the truth. The quality of American basic science could once again increase, since recognition would be based upon accomplishment instead of money-raising.
Without government-paid physical and economic "scientists'' distorting facts, Americans could be freed from many of the regulatory burdens that have no rational scientific basis. That cost is illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 from
Ten Thousand Commandments by C. W. Crews, Jr. (1996) from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N. W., Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20036.
|
|
Vol. 24, No. 3
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 24, No. 3 Date: October 01, 1996 01:04 PM Title: Human Bandwidth
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|