Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Trump's Deconstruction of the Admin State, & Anti-Science View


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 19 July 2017 - 07:32 PM

Per Trump's budget he plans to basically cut everything except military, security/border/immigration related matters, and traditional/'basic' infrastructure (roads, bridges, and that sort).

I did start a thread 45's/Republican's Budget(s) back in May, but quoting numbers give very like context or idea of how that will actually affect employees, policy, programs and citizens. Many people hear government worker than when they do work that the work they do is useless and is of no great consequences to actual citizens.

Today a government worker spoke out, and wrote an article about how he has been reassigned, from helping endangered American communities to basically an accounting job. He knows that such reassignments are in hopes that people will quit. But while his article is about such harms such actions does, he also shines a spot-light on the important work he did, that is still needed, to help endangered American communities.

I'm a scientist. I'm blowing the whistle on the Trump administration.

Edited by sierraleone, 19 July 2017 - 08:55 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#2 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 31 October 2017 - 06:59 PM

WaPo: Scott Pruitt blocks scientists with EPA funding from serving as agency advisers

This sounds good to some people, thinking scientist who have received EPA funding are biased and have conflict of interest, as this quote would demonstrate:

Quote

“It is very, very important to ensure independence, to ensure that we’re getting advice and counsel independent of the EPA,” Administrator Scott Pruitt told reporters Tuesday.

However, that is a very simplistic way to look at it.

First of all, if there was bias in EPA funded scientific research, what would the bias be towards/against? The funding one could argue makes EPA-funded scientist make them bias towards EPA's mission "to protect human health and the environment", or it's leader's agenda/directions (that the two may not be in sync would be an understatement at the moment…).

Second of all, what are the options/results if you are only getting scientist with no EPA funding as agency advisors, and what is the bias of those scientists? What is the majority of the funding of science come from outside of the government? Would that not be corporations? That would come with its own set of biases towards the corporation's industrial interests, which may be against the EPA mission, would it not? I mean, is there some wide amount of funding by rich patrons, independent of corporate and industrial interests, in the scientific research, that I am not aware of?

How are scientists receiving grant money from EPA more independent and free from bias than scientists receiving grant money from corporations?

Scientific research needs funding. For infrastructure, for equipment, for wages (so scientists are reasonably assured that they can continue to afford to live). It has got to come from somewhere. Government, corporations, private rich individuals with delusions of grandeur. All come with their incentives and possible related bias. Even if one could argue that scientists that get funding from *other* government agencies it appears would still be allowed…. Don't you want scientists with a background in the applicable field? Not saying some skills aren't transferable, but on an EPA advisory board I'd rather have a scientist who studies human health or the environment over one that studies the stars. And chances are that a scientist in such fields are more likely to have had brushes with EPA grants.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#3 3C273

3C273
  • Islander
  • 334 posts

Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:10 PM

What we see is pandering to the crowd that doesn't believe in government or science.  The lunatic fringe is now in charge.  Sigh....

#4 Orpheus

Orpheus

    I'm not the boss of you!

  • Administrator
  • 17,598 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 04:39 AM

The US Federal Government, protecting its citizens in 2017.

#5 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:44 PM

*sigh* WaPo: CDC [Centre for Disease Control and Prevention] gets list of forbidden words or phrases in any official document being prepared for next year's budget. They are:

"vulnerable"
"entitlement"
"diversity"
"transgender"
"fetus"
"evidence-based"
"science-based"

Bolding mine. Really???

Regarding the non-bolded ones:
Diversity could be replaced with different populations or different strains.
I can't think of where the world entitlement would definitely belong in their terminology regarding diseases, but maybe among programs or other matters.

As for Vulnerable. Vulnerable populations. Or weak protections that leave people vulnerable.  Vulnerable could probably be replaced with another synonym, like susceptible, but I don't understand banning it.

But I can't think of a succinct objective replacement for the other ones I've bolded. And they are all applicable to the prevention, management, and/or treatment of diseases.

Transgendered being at higher risk factor for this or that, or the complications they have as patients due to their transgender-related surguries/meds/etc, and the lack of informed doctors.
Fetus. Um. I mean I suppose they could use a term pro-life people would like. It doesn't sound like they have banned zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo, which covers up to about the eighth week post-conception ;) For 9-38 weeks does former embryo work? Pre-natal-post-embryo? Pre-natal conceptus?
Evidence-based or science-based. I really expect I won't have to explain the importance of this in the hopefully, erm, fact-based and reproducible-result-based field of medicine. Or are we going back to blood-letting? Thought I suppose "reality-based" is a good replacement, though I am afraid that based on this list that may make some people need smelling salts to revive them ;)

Alternative-facts appear alive and well.

Though I suspect the aim is to not so much to change language as just defund research and programs meant for work related to these words :( They are banning these words from the *budget*.

Edited by sierraleone, Yesterday, 10:03 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users