Another day, another scientific report blocked by Bush appointees

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Oh, gee, another report suppressed by the Bush administration because it wasn't skewed to stress the Administration's political priorities.

This morning's Washington Post front page story
Bush Aide Blocked Report
Global Health Draft In 2006 Rejected for Not Being Political

A surgeon general's report in 2006 that called on Americans to help tackle global health problems has been kept from the public by a Bush political appointee without any background or expertise in medicine or public health, chiefly because the report did not promote the administration's policy accomplishments, according to current and former public health officials.

The report described the link between poverty and poor health, urged the U.S. government to help combat widespread diseases as a key aim of its foreign policy, and called on corporations to help improve health conditions in the countries where they operate. A copy of the report was obtained by The Washington Post.

Three people directly involved in its preparation said its publication was blocked by William R. Steiger, a specialist in education and a scholar of Latin American history whose family has long ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Since 2001, Steiger has run the Office of Global Health Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Richard H. Carmona, who commissioned the "Call to Action on Global Health" while serving as surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, recently cited its suppression as an example of the Bush administration's frequent efforts during his tenure to give scientific documents a political twist. At a July 10 House committee hearing, Carmona did not cite Steiger by name or detail the report's contents and its implications for American public health.

Carmona told lawmakers that, as he fought to release the document, he was "called in and again admonished . . . via a senior official who said, 'You don't get it.' " He said a senior official told him that "this will be a political document, or it will not be released."

After a long struggle that pitted top scientific and medical experts inside and outside the government against Steiger and his political bosses, Carmona refused to make the requested changes, according to the officials. Carmona engaged in similar fights over other public health reports, including an unpublished report on prison health. A few days before the end of his term as the nation's senior medical officer, he was abruptly told he would not be reappointed.

Steiger did not return a phone call seeking his comment. But he said in a written statement released by an HHS spokesman Friday that the report contained information that was "often inaccurate or out-of-date and it lacked analysis and focus."

Steiger confirmed that he sharply disagreed with Carmona on the issue of how much the report should promote Bush administration policies. "A document meant to educate the American public about health as a global challenge and urge them to action should at least let Americans know what their generosity is already doing in helping to solve those challenges," Steiger said in the statement.

Steiger said that "political considerations" did not delay the report; "sloppy work, poor analysis, and lack of scientific rigor did." Asked about the report's handling, an HHS spokeswoman said Friday that it is still "under development."

The draft report itself, in language linking public health problems with violence and other social ills, says "we cannot overstate . . . that problems in remote parts of the globe can no longer be ignored. Diseases that Americans once read about as affecting people in regions . . . most of us would never visit are now capable of reaching us directly. The hunger, disease, and death resulting from poor food and nutrition create social and political instability . . . and that instability may spread to other nations as people migrate to survive."

In 65 pages, the report charts trends in infectious and chronic disease; reviews efforts to curb AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; calls for the careful monitoring of public health to safeguard against bioterrorism; and explains the importance of proper nutrition, childhood immunizations and clean air and water, among other topics. Its underlying message is that disease and suffering do not respect political boundaries in an era of globalization and mass population movements.

The report was compiled by government and private public-health experts from various organizations, including the National Institutes of Health, the Catholic Medical Mission Board and several universities. Steiger's global health office provided the funding and staff to lead the effort because the surgeon general's office has no budget and few staff members of its own.
.
.
.
Three people involved in the preparation of an initial draft in 2005 said it received largely positive reviews from global health experts both inside and outside the government, prompting wide optimism that the report would be publicly released that year. The Commissioned Officers Association, a nonprofit group representing more than 7,000 current and retired officers of the U.S. Public Health Service, organized a global health summit in June 2005 in Philadelphia where Carmona was expected to unveil the report in a keynote address -- but he was not cleared to release it there.

Richard Walling, a former career official in the HHS global health office who oversaw the draft, said Steiger was the official who blocked its release. "Steiger always had his political hat on," he said. "I don't think public health was what his vision was. As far as the international office was concerned, it was a political office of the secretary. . . . What he was looking for, and in general what he was always looking for, was, 'How do we promote the policies and the programs of the administration?' This report didn't focus on that."
.
.
.
"I fought for my last year to try to get it out and couldn't get it past the initial vetting," Carmona testified earlier this month. "I refused to release it [with the requested changes] . . . because it would tarnish the office of the surgeon general when our colleagues saw us taking a political stand."

Thomas Novotny, a former assistant surgeon general who ran the global health office before Steiger, said, "It's embarrassing, just ridiculous that the report hasn't come out." Novotny, who served at HHS in the Clinton and in both Bush administrations, said that many nations have made health issues central to their foreign relations and trade policies, but that the United States has been reluctant to embrace that idea.

"It made perfect sense for the surgeon general to take up the issue because the U.S. used to be a leader in this field," Novotny said. "For the nation's top doctor to be unable to release the report shows that leadership is gone."
.
.
.
Not until Bush II has there ever been an administration so willfully opposed to objective science, so ideologically driven that it refuses to let the facts speak for themselves. And you can bet that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Here's a link to the draft report:
Draft
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: shira
Not until Bush II has there ever been an administration so willfully opposed to objective science, so ideologically driven that it refuses to let the facts speak for themselves. And you can bet that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
I don?t support the blocking of this report for political reasons, but you are stretching with your ?willfully opposed to objective science? line.
This report isn?t about science, it is about policy.
Since when did scientists study the link between poverty and health? Unless you are talking about ?social scientists.? Also the guy blocking it isn?t blocking because he doesn?t like the science of the report, but because he doesn?t like the politics of the report.

Furthermore, Bush has a great record when it comes to Africa and public health. Even Vanity Fair called it one of the good things about his Presidency.

There is a legitimate reason to question why this report is being blocked, but claiming it has something to do with ?opposition to science? is not one of those. Perhaps if you had not made your post so partisan in nature more people would agree with you.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: shira
Not until Bush II has there ever been an administration so willfully opposed to objective science, so ideologically driven that it refuses to let the facts speak for themselves. And you can bet that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
I don?t support the blocking of this report for political reasons, but you are stretching with your ?willfully opposed to objective science? line.
This report isn?t about science, it is about policy.
Since when did scientists study the link between poverty and health? Unless you are talking about ?social scientists.? Also the guy blocking it isn?t blocking because he doesn?t like the science of the report, but because he doesn?t like the politics of the report.

Furthermore, Bush has a great record when it comes to Africa and public health. Even Vanity Fair called it one of the good things about his Presidency.

There is a legitimate reason to question why this report is being blocked, but claiming it has something to do with ?opposition to science? is not one of those. Perhaps if you had not made your post so partisan in nature more people would agree with you.

Something doesn't cease being science just because it has a political impact as well. Many politicians, on both sides, frequently have political views that are directly opposed to science...that does not make the science "political".
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,652
6,219
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: shira
Not until Bush II has there ever been an administration so willfully opposed to objective science, so ideologically driven that it refuses to let the facts speak for themselves. And you can bet that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
I don?t support the blocking of this report for political reasons, but you are stretching with your ?willfully opposed to objective science? line.
This report isn?t about science, it is about policy.
Since when did scientists study the link between poverty and health? Unless you are talking about ?social scientists.? Also the guy blocking it isn?t blocking because he doesn?t like the science of the report, but because he doesn?t like the politics of the report.

Furthermore, Bush has a great record when it comes to Africa and public health. Even Vanity Fair called it one of the good things about his Presidency.

There is a legitimate reason to question why this report is being blocked, but claiming it has something to do with ?opposition to science? is not one of those. Perhaps if you had not made your post so partisan in nature more people would agree with you.

Links between Poverty and Health are not "Social". Health is well understood and the connection to Health and certain environments is also well understood. It is not necessary for a "Social Scientist" to link the two, it's just common sense.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
You guys amaze me sometimes.

Read the first line of the story, it explains in VERY plain English why the report was blocked. And it had nothing to do with the science of the report.

A surgeon general's report in 2006 that called on Americans to help tackle global health problems has been kept from the public by a Bush political appointee without any background or expertise in medicine or public health, chiefly because the report did not promote the administration's policy accomplishments, according to current and former public health officials.
BTW before I posted there had been 24 views and no comments in the hour it was up.
After my comment there have been 5 comments in less than 20 minutes? we should call this the ?PJ effect.?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,652
6,219
126
It seems there needs to be a separation of Departments and the White House. Sure, let the President appoint the Heads of Departments and perhaps even affect Policy within Departments, but when it comes to Reports and the work done within those Departments, give the Departments complete Independence.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You guys amaze me sometimes.

Read the first line of the story, it explains in VERY plain English why the report was blocked. And it had nothing to do with the science of the report.

A surgeon general's report in 2006 that called on Americans to help tackle global health problems has been kept from the public by a Bush political appointee without any background or expertise in medicine or public health, chiefly because the report did not promote the administration's policy accomplishments, according to current and former public health officials.

Uh, yeah, that's the complaint...that science is subordinate to politics. That's not a defense, Jethro, that's the entire problem with this administration.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,652
6,219
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You guys amaze me sometimes.

Read the first line of the story, it explains in VERY plain English why the report was blocked. And it had nothing to do with the science of the report.

A surgeon general's report in 2006 that called on Americans to help tackle global health problems has been kept from the public by a Bush political appointee without any background or expertise in medicine or public health, chiefly because the report did not promote the administration's policy accomplishments, according to current and former public health officials.

Read further, the reasons go way beyond that. Besides, why would that reason be acceptable?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
It seems there needs to be a separation of Departments and the White House. Sure, let the President appoint the Heads of Departments and perhaps even affect Policy within Departments, but when it comes to Reports and the work done within those Departments, give the Departments complete Independence.
Ummm we elect people so that their ideas and plans can be carried out.
What you are suggesting undermines that basic principle.

If you want an example of what you suggest look at the NYC public school system which was completely independent of the mayor?s office. Every time the mayor?s office tried any type of reform the school board blocked the reform. Which is why their school system is such a mess, there was no accountability.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,652
6,219
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: sandorski
It seems there needs to be a separation of Departments and the White House. Sure, let the President appoint the Heads of Departments and perhaps even affect Policy within Departments, but when it comes to Reports and the work done within those Departments, give the Departments complete Independence.
Ummm we elect people so that their ideas and plans can be carried out.
What you are suggesting undermines that basic principle.

If you want an example of what you suggest look at the NYC public school system which was completely independent of the mayor?s office. Every time the mayor?s office tried any type of reform the school board blocked the reform. Which is why their school system is such a mess, there was no accountability.

Strawman. Departments should not be merely part of the propaganda apparatus of Politicians. They need some Independence so that they can address issues purely from a Scientific view.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: sandorski
It seems there needs to be a separation of Departments and the White House. Sure, let the President appoint the Heads of Departments and perhaps even affect Policy within Departments, but when it comes to Reports and the work done within those Departments, give the Departments complete Independence.
Ummm we elect people so that their ideas and plans can be carried out.
What you are suggesting undermines that basic principle.

If you want an example of what you suggest look at the NYC public school system which was completely independent of the mayor?s office. Every time the mayor?s office tried any type of reform the school board blocked the reform. Which is why their school system is such a mess, there was no accountability.
The point of having an Surgeon General is a high-level voice that looks after the public good with respect to health issues.

If, say, an overwhelming body of evidence supports the contention that abstinence-only programs promote out-of-wedlock pregnancies and STDs as compared with more balanced sex-education programs - if that becomes the scientific consensus, then the public has a right to know what objective studies are telling us, free from ideological/policitcal meddling and slant.

We're talking life and death here, not ideology.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
It seems to me that you guys are more interested in arguing with me than getting to the bottom of this.

The scientists are claiming this report is being blocked for political reasons.
The politician is claiming it is being blocked for science reasons.

Now what do you think is the truth here?

Now go back and read my first post in this thread to see where I stand on this issue.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: sandorski
It seems there needs to be a separation of Departments and the White House. Sure, let the President appoint the Heads of Departments and perhaps even affect Policy within Departments, but when it comes to Reports and the work done within those Departments, give the Departments complete Independence.
Ummm we elect people so that their ideas and plans can be carried out.
What you are suggesting undermines that basic principle.

If you want an example of what you suggest look at the NYC public school system which was completely independent of the mayor?s office. Every time the mayor?s office tried any type of reform the school board blocked the reform. Which is why their school system is such a mess, there was no accountability.

Of course elected officials are there to carry out their ideas, that does not mean we should encourage them to form those ideas with no regard for reality. Not everything is politics, and not every idea is equally valid. There are facts and scientific theories that don't play politics, no matter how much you might wish it. Different politicians can interpret the facts differently, or use them in different ways, but no one should be able to simply disregard science because it doesn't support their politics. Science doesn't work like that, you can elect politicians...but you can't put facts up for a popular vote.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It seems to me that you guys are more interested in arguing with me than getting to the bottom of this.

The scientists are claiming this report is being blocked for political reasons.
The politician is claiming it is being blocked for science reasons.

Now what do you think is the truth here?

Now go back and read my first post in this thread to see where I stand on this issue.

Nonsense. First, Steiger is not a scientist (he's got a doctorate in Latin American history), so where does he come off telling us the report was bad science?

Second, there is this quotation a little further on in the story:
On June 30, 2006, a Steiger aide sent an e-mail saying that the report should not be cleared for public distribution: "While we believe the subject matter of the draft is important, we disagree with the style, tone and messaging," wrote the aide, Mark A. Abdoo, according to a copy of the e-mail. "We believe this document should be focused tightly on the Administration's major priorities in global health so the American public can understand better why these issues should be important to them. As such, the draft should be a policy statement, albeit one that is evidence based and draws on the best available science."

Note that the email says nothing about "bad science" as a justification for blocking the report. It's "style, tone, and messaging." Clearly, this is to be a "policy statement," not an objective report.

Third, there's this excerpt:

Three people involved in the preparation of an initial draft in 2005 said it received largely positive reviews from global health experts both inside and outside the government, prompting wide optimism that the report would be publicly released that year.

Not exactly the response one would expect to get from the scientific community for "bad science."

It's clear to me and to anyone else who can read and chooses to understand plain English that suppressing this report was entirely about politics and zero about science.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It seems to me that you guys are more interested in arguing with me than getting to the bottom of this.

The scientists are claiming this report is being blocked for political reasons.
The politician is claiming it is being blocked for science reasons.

Now what do you think is the truth here?

Now go back and read my first post in this thread to see where I stand on this issue.

Where you stand on this issue has never been unclear, hence the arguing. Your position is clearly that science should be treated as politics whenever an OPPOSING view is politically motivated, and that there is no problem with opposing science for political reasons. The politicians are NOT claiming that it is being blocked for "science reasons", they are claiming it's being blocked because it doesn't support administration policy. But science is just science, any support or lack of support for a policy position is purely incidental, something neither the politicians involved here, nor you, seem to understand.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,111
6,610
126
It is not important that you or somebody you know dies in ever increasing likelihood of some strange foreign disease. What is important is that Bush be patted on the back for yesterday's effort on some minutia.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW before I posted there had been 24 views and no comments in the hour it was up.

After my comment there have been 5 comments in less than 20 minutes? we should call this the ?PJ effect.?

Absolutely because the vile for this country shows with every one of your posts.

It's simple not a "PJ" effect, Get the message

Americans that love their country do not like you and wish you would leave and take Bush and all with you.

Thank you
 

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
"Not until Bush II has there ever been an administration so willfully opposed to objective science"

You mean like the Kyoto "hockey stick" "model" thats now seen as the rubbish it always was? This "report" is more rubbish obviously. Quite fitting that people oppose the ever growing tide of rubbish science being conjured up for the psychotic crowd that swills it down.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Butterbean
"Not until Bush II has there ever been an administration so willfully opposed to objective science"

You mean like the Kyoto "hockey stick" "model" thats now seen as the rubbish it always was? This "report" is more rubbish obviously. Quite fitting that people oppose the ever growing tide of rubbish science being conjured up for the psychotic crowd that swills it down.

Since scientific theories are often later proved to be incorrect and corrected by better theories, I'm not sure what your point is. All scientists acknowledge this and admit that science is never perfect, they only claim that it's accurate to the best of their knowledge at the moment. Science being displaced by better science is not proof that science is rubbish, quite the opposite in fact...it's how scientific progress works.

The problem is when people like you oppose science for political reasons, which is something the Bush administration has been doing from day one. The "hockey stick model" is not the utter crap that you seem to think it is, but even if it WAS, there would still be a problem because people like you are opposing it for political reasons rather than because you honestly believe in supporting the best objective science possible. Had the model been a paradigm of scientific perfection, you STILL would have argued against it, and had it been incorrect but supportive of your climate views, you would have defended it to the death. The fact that you are every once in a while on the side of good science isn't very admirable, as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW before I posted there had been 24 views and no comments in the hour it was up.

After my comment there have been 5 comments in less than 20 minutes? we should call this the ?PJ effect.?

Absolutely because the vile for this country shows with every one of your posts.

It's simple not a "PJ" effect, Get the message

Americans that love their country do not like you and wish you would leave and take Bush and all with you.

Thank you

Actually I agree with 100% of the good professor says!!

The PJ effect pretty well sums things up!!
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: shira
Not until Bush II has there ever been an administration so willfully opposed to objective science, so ideologically driven that it refuses to let the facts speak for themselves. And you can bet that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
I don?t support the blocking of this report for political reasons, but you are stretching with your ?willfully opposed to objective science? line.
This report isn?t about science, it is about policy.
Since when did scientists study the link between poverty and health? Unless you are talking about ?social scientists.? Also the guy blocking it isn?t blocking because he doesn?t like the science of the report, but because he doesn?t like the politics of the report.

Furthermore, Bush has a great record when it comes to Africa and public health. Even Vanity Fair called it one of the good things about his Presidency.

There is a legitimate reason to question why this report is being blocked, but claiming it has something to do with ?opposition to science? is not one of those. Perhaps if you had not made your post so partisan in nature more people would agree with you.

actually I think the report lacked political twisting...which is what the administration wanted to inject into the report.

so you are wrong.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
From PJ-

I don?t support the blocking of this report for political reasons, but you are stretching with your ?willfully opposed to objective science? line.
This report isn?t about science, it is about policy.
Since when did scientists study the link between poverty and health? Unless you are talking about ?social scientists.? Also the guy blocking it isn?t blocking because he doesn?t like the science of the report, but because he doesn?t like the politics of the report.

Let's look at this a little more closely. First, PJ claims that he doesn't support blocking this report for political reasons, then claims the report is really about policy, which is, for the Bush Admin, entirely political. Which way do you want it, PJ? Either policy supports science or flies in the face of it, take your pick. The Bush Admin has made their choice clear in this and many other examples- any involvement of science in their policy decisions is pure coincidence. They have an Agenda, so damn the science, and the torpedoes- full speed ahead!

Scientists have long studied the effects between nutrition, sanitation, preventive medicine and health in general. Poverty generally involves a lack of all three- nutrition, sanitation and preventive medicine, particularly in the third world. To claim that such work is without merit is to discredit the life work of many notable humanitarian scientists, starting with Schweitzer and Mother Teresa...

If the report doesn't put enough fluff under the Admin's efforts, then counter it with a report of their own, instead of suppressing it.

Sheesh- you'd think this was N Korea, where every word from the govt or in the press is there to praise the Dear Leader...

PS- there's some indication that the admin's anti-aids efforts are more of an exercise in promoting various christian fundie organizations and their abstinence only teachings than anything else... kinda like their diversion of public school funds to private religious institutions....
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
This just keeps reminding me of the problem i see in business as well as government. Seems like the people in charge making the decisions often know little about what the part of the company they are in charge of specializes in. Kinda scary really, work at a utility that owns several nuclear plants and the people in charge of the nuclear division aren't nuclear engineers or anything like that they are MBAs, but they have the final word in safety and policy and can choose to listen or disregard their advisers on their own whim. Fortunately where I work it seems as though they are smart enough to listen to what their people have to say. However in many other industries and the government there is a considerable pressure to toe the part line instead of listening to what is right. Unfortunately it is common all across the country for people to disregard the experts in favor of supporting their leaders (likely in order to curry favor to get promoted latter). Even more unfortunate is that in industry it often takes a disaster before people turn around and realise that has gone wrong. IF nothing bad happens these people can climb the cooperate ladder fast and make millions. Think for example Enron who screwed millions of energy customers as well as their own employees while at the same time becoming ridiculously wealthy. The sad part is that for every 1 of these people who gets put in jail 100 more get fat bonuses and retire before their actions can come back to bite them in the ass (although their workers likely will not be so lucky and will be stuck dealing with the mess).
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Well? seems there is more to this story than what the WaPo is telling us.

1. Apparently the report that was rejected calls for us to ratify some Tobacco treaty. Now last time I checked I thought we elected politicians so they could decide which treaties we should or should not enter into.
But apparently the people in this thread have decided that we should allow scientists decide what treaties the government should ratify.
Which makes perfect sense to me; after all, if we had listened to the scientists we would have ratified Kyoto 10 years ago and would currently be spending billions of dollars in order to reach emission standards and other types of goals that in the end would have virtually NO impact on the expected rise in temperature.

Maybe we should follow Sandorski?s suggest and just totally eliminate our elected government all together and put a bunch of scientists in charge. After all scientists are never wrong right?

2. It seems that Mr. Steiger, the mean politician trying to block the report of these wonderful altruistic scientists, is up for an ambassadorship. And some are theorizing that what we are seeing via this article is the opening salvo in the war to keep him from getting that position