LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  June 2004

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE June 2004

Subject:

analysis of the phrase "Sound Science"

From:

Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:17:24 +1200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (217 lines)

>
> An analysis of the phrase "Sound Science" - a favourite expression of GM
>food & crop advocates ...
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=100
> [The Gadflyer is a new progressive Internet magazine]
> May 13, 2004
>
> The Fraud of 'Sound Science'
> A history of a conservative term of art
>
> By Chris Mooney, Contributor
>
>
> Over recent months, an unprecedented rupture has occurred between the
>U.S. scientific community and the White House.  Denunciations of President
>Bush's science policies by a slew of Nobel Laureates organized by the
>Union of Concerned Scientists, followed by a sweeping rejection of the
>scientists' charges by the administration, have made for great political
>theater.  But the controversy has also shown that on issues ranging from
>mercury pollution to global warming, today's political conservatives have
>an extremely peculiar - and decidedly non-mainstream - concept of what
>science says and how to reach scientific conclusions.  Conservatives and
>the Bush administration claim to be staunch defenders of science, of
>course; but close attention to the very language they use suggests
>otherwise.
>
>
> Much of the modern conservative agenda on science is embodied in the
> enigmatic phrase "sound science," a term used with increasing frequency
> these days despite its apparent lack of a clear, agreed-upon definition. In
> one sense, "sound science" simply means "good science." Indeed, when
> unwitting liberals and journalists have been caught using the phrase -
>which happens quite frequently - it appears to have been with this meaning
>in mind.
>
>
> Conservatives, too, want people to hear "good science" when they say "sound
> science."  But there are reasons for thinking they actually mean something
> more by the term.  The Bush administration has invoked "sound science" on
> issues ranging from climate change to arsenic in drinking water, virtually
> always in defense of a looser government regulatory standard than might
> otherwise have been adopted. In this sense, "sound science" seems to mean
> requiring a high burden of proof before taking government action to protect
> public health and the environment (not really a scientific position at all).
> Indeed, in an online discussion of "Sound Science and Public Policy," the
> Western Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives, chaired by Utah
> Republican Chris Cannon, notes that "environmental laws should be made with
> great caution and demand a high degree of scientific certainty" - once
> again, a policy statement rather than one having to do strictly with
> science.
>
>
> A short history of the phrase "sound science," and its development into a
> mantra of the political right, clearly demonstrates its anti-regulatory,
> pro-industry slant.  Strategic uses by the business community trace back at
> least to Dow Chemical Company president Paul F. Oreffice's 1983 claim that a
> $3 million program to allay fears of dioxin pollution in Michigan would use
> "sound science" to "reassure" the public - i.e., downplay risks.  To rebut
> Dow's claims, a young South Dakota representative named Tom Daschle promptly
> released results from a confidential study suggesting that dioxin damages
> the immune system. In this incident, it's possible to see the first
> sprouting of a political debate over "sound science" that would bloom into a
> full schism a decade later.
>
> A key development came in 1993, when an Environmental Protection Agency
> report estimated that secondhand smoke causes some 3,000 lung cancer deaths
> each year. EPA classified secondhand smoke as a Group A human carcinogen.
> The tobacco lobby quickly sprang into action, and it's not hard to see why.
> If smokers were hurting other people, and not merely themselves, the issue
> wasn't just about "personal responsibility" any more. Society could find
> itself compelled to take steps to ban smoking in a variety of public venues.
>
>
> The Tobacco Institute, an industry group, quickly labeled EPA's conclusions
> "another step in a long process characterized by a preference for political
> correctness over sound science." And as we now know from tobacco documents
> made available as a consequence of litigation, the industry decided to do
> something about it.
>
>
> In early 1993, Philip Morris and its public relations firm, APCO Associates,
> created a nonprofit front group called The Advancement of Sound Science
> Coalition (TASSC) to help fight against the regulation of secondhand smoke.
> To mask its true purpose, TASSC assembled a range of anti-regulatory
> interests under one umbrella, and rarely, if ever, explicitly challenged the
> notion that secondhand smoke poses health risks. Instead, the group, headed
> by former New Mexico governor Garrey Carruthers, described itself as a
> "not-for-profit coalition advocating the use of sound science in public
> policy decision making." Still, at the very least TASSC implied that the
> science of secondhand smoke was bogus. For example, in 1994 the group
> released a poll of scientists suggesting that politicians were abusing
> science on issues such as "asbestos, pesticides, dioxin, environmental
> tobacco smoke or water quality."
>
>
> At roughly the same time, fortuitously or otherwise, the incoming Republican
> Congress of 1994 adopted "sound science" as a mantra. Just a week after the
> November 1994 elections, Newt Gingrich and company had set the tone.
> "Property rights" and "sound science" had become "the environmental
> buzzwords of the new Republican Congress," a Knight-Ridder news report
> noted. The perceptive report also included a definition of "sound science,"
> which suggested it meant much more than simply "good science." Instead, the
> point was deregulation: "'Sound science' is shorthand for the notion that
> anti-pollution laws have gone to extremes, spending huge amounts of money to
> protect people from miniscule risks."
>
>
> Calls for "sound science" closely accompanied the push to enact a key tenet
> of the Republican Party's "Contract With America" - regulatory "reform," an
> industry-backed gambit to provide steep hurdles to future environmental,
> health, and safety regulations. Reform bills sponsored in 1995 by Gingrich
> and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole would have imposed stringent new rules
> on the process by which the Environmental Protection Agency and other
> government bodies conducted science-based risk assessments to determine
> whether a particular danger should be regulated. The proposals demonstrated
> that the new Republican majority wanted nothing less than to become
> government's science cops - and to start fixing the tickets of industry.
>
>
> The leading regulatory reform proposals would have legislated the very
> nature of science itself. They prescribed a one-size-fits-all standard for
> risk assessment across very different government agencies, potentially
> stifling scientific adaptability. The bills also would have erected a "peer
> review" process to scrutinize risk assessments with large potential
> regulatory impacts - one that would have not only bogged down the regulatory
> process, but also allowed industry scientists to participate in or even
> dominate reviews. In addition, regulatory reform would have created new
> opportunities for federal court challenges over agency risk assessments - an
> ideal opportunity for business interests to engage in scientific warfare
> over analyses they didn't like. The whole process, Public Citizen lawyer
> David Vladeck wrote at the time, smacked of an attempt to achieve "paralysis
> by analysis."
>
>
> Reformers didn't describe it that way, of course. As Dole argued in a
> Washington Post commentary, the goal was to make sure that agencies were
> using "the best information and sound science available." Yet the notion
> that Republican reformers were merely calling for better science in the
> abstract - instead of issuing unrealistic demands for minimized uncertainty
> before regulation could be undertaken - is hard to swallow. At the same time
> that they pushed for regulatory reform, the Gingrich Republicans dismantled
> Congress's Office of Technology Assessment, a widely respected scientific
> advisory body, and sought to slash funding for government scientific
> research.
>
>
> Throughout the whole saga, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
> cheered the regulatory reformers along, sometimes explicitly. In an October
> 13, 1994 speech, TASSC chairman Garrey Carruthers specifically endorsed a
> regulatory reform proposal by Louisiana Democratic Senator J. Bennett
> Johnston (co-sponsor of the Dole bill). Then in 1995, the group released a
> study protesting negative media coverage of regulatory reform, which Dole,
> in turn, cited in a statement. Carruthers heralded the survey - without, of
> course, mentioning tobacco in any way. "We want to offer information on how
> scientific issues are communicated to the public as another means of
> ensuring that only sound science is used in making public policy decisions,"
> he stated.
>
>
> Ultimately, the regulatory reformers went too far and their proposal died in
> the Senate -but not before it had helped crystallize a new conservative
> lexicon. In a 1996 report, the late Rep. George Brown, ranking Democratic
> member of the House Science Committee, issued a long and anguished
> reflection on the Republican Party's adoption of "sound science" principles
> entitled "Environmental Science Under Siege: Fringe Science and the 104th
> Congress." Brown's report provides a powerful riposte to the "sound science"
> movement, whose proponents he accused of having "little or no experience of
> what science does and how it progresses."
>
>
> Brown's ire had been raised by a series of hearings by the
> Republican-controlled Energy and Environment Subcommittee entitled
> "Scientific Integrity and the Public Trust," which were a closely related
> offshoot of the regulatory reform movement. Presided over by Rep. Dana
> Rohrabacher of California - who notoriously derided climate change as
> "liberal claptrap" - the hearings levied charges of science abuse across
> three environmental issues: ozone depletion, global warming, and dioxin
> risks. After an analysis of the hearings, Brown found "no credible evidence"
> of scientific distortion in the interest of environmental scare-mongering.
> But he did come away with a definition of "sound science" as used repeatedly
> by the Republican majority. "The Majority seems to equate sound science with
> absolute certainty regarding a particular problem," wrote Brown. "By this
> standard, a substance can only be regulated after we know with absolute
> certainty that the substance is harmful. This is an unrealistic and
> inappropriate standard."
>
>
> Nevertheless, invocations of "sound science" to prevent regulation remain a
> core component of the conservative science agenda today. In 2002, Republican
> pollster and strategist Frank Luntz - who did polling work for the GOP's
> 1994 Contract with America - wrote in a memorandum (PDF) for GOP
> congressional candidates that "The most important principle in any
> discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science." But what
> was most intriguing was what "sound science" actually meant to Luntz on
> climate change. "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet
> closed," he added cynically. "There is still a window of opportunity to
> challenge the science." It's hard to read Luntz's words as anything but yet
> another call for "paralysis by analysis."
>
>
> Conservatives and liberals both agree that science is crucially important
> for making public policy. But the answers provided by scientific research
> are rarely certain and always open to disputation or challenge. When
> conservatives today call for "sound science," the evidence suggests that
> what they really want is to hold a scientific filibuster - and thereby delay
> political action.
>
>
> Chris Mooney is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect. Read
>more of his articles at: chriscmooney.com.
>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager