John Marburger, the science advisor for the Bush Administration, would make an excellent blogger. After the Union of Concerned Scientists (USC) issued a report, "Scientific Integrity In Policy Making", that listed instances of what it described as the administration's "misuse of science", Marburger fired back with a point-by-point fisking of the USC’s claims.
When comparing the original report to the rebuttal, it becomes obvious that on many points the USC is being intentionally misleading. While I don’t think the 60 “prominent" scientists who signed the document are all bald-faced liars, I think they should certainly be more careful about attaching their good names to such a shoddy report.
One area in particular that caught my attention was the USC’s claim that scientific knowledge on HIV/AIDS prevention had been intentionally distorted. Since it referenced documents that I wrote about yesterday, I wondered if I had been duped by the CDC. Here is the entire excerpt (excluding footnotes) from the USC's report on the supposed HIV/AIDS “distortion":
At the instigation of higher-ups in the George W. Bush administration, fact-based information on the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) website has been altered to raise scientifically questionable doubt about the efficacy of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
A fact sheet on the CDC website that included information on proper condom use, the effectiveness of different types of condoms, and studies showing that condom education does not promote sexual activity was replaced in October 2002 with a document that emphasizes condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.When a source inside the CDC questioned the actions, she was told that the changes were directed by Bush administration officials at the Department of Health and Human Services.
In order to judge the accuracy of this claim, let’s compare the old version of the fact sheet to the new “distorted" one that was instigated by the Bush administration:
The Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) website has been altered to raise scientifically questionable doubt about the efficacy of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Old version: "Laboratory studies show that latex condoms are effective barriers to HIV and STDS. In addition, several studies provide compelling evidence that latex condoms are highly effective in protecting against HIV infection when used for every act of intercourse."
New version: "Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. …Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate conclusively that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection."
Does that sound as if they are trying to “raise scientifically questionable doubt about the efficacy of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS"? No. But the UCS expects people will simply take their word for it -- they are, after all scientists -- and won’t bother to check for themselves. Of course maybe the UCS didn’t intend to be misleading. It’s always possible they didn’t check the facts for themselves either.
A fact sheet on the CDC website that included information on proper condom use, the effectiveness of different types of condoms, and studies showing that condom education does not promote sexual activity was replaced in October 2002 with a document that emphasizes condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.
Actually, the old fact sheet is the only one that mentions condom failure rates. The new one doesn’t mention it at all. And both of them emphasize the effectiveness of abstinence.
Old version: “Several studies clearly show that condom breakage rates in this country are less than 2%."; “Refraining from having sexual intercourse with an infected partner is the best way to prevent transmission of HIV and other STDs. But for those who have sexual intercourse, latex condoms are highly effective when used consistently and correctly.
New version: “The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected. For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for STDs, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of STD transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD."
The true “misuse of science" is when reputable scientists make false claims about their area of knowledge in order to further a political agenda. The public has already grown wary of authoritative claims by scientists on such areas as politics and ethics. If they continue to erode their credibility in this manner we may find that we can't trust them on issues of science either.
So is this their area of knowledge? The physicists I know wouldn't have a clue about how effective a condom is. What I find most annoying is when scientists speak up on topics outside their fields as if they were authorities on it, figuring that, hey, it's science and I'm a scientist. Scientists are, as a rule, very knowledgeable in a very narrow field. Once they go outside, they know less than, say, someone with a history of science degree.
I am a high school teacher. Our kids have been thoroughly lied to by the left in public school using the veil of official "Institutes of Health."
The facts are clear, condoms do not prevent PREGNANCY. I googled "condoms" and "failure"
I looked at articles by women's health clinics, the question being, "We do not want to have children right away. What contraceptive should we use?" The answer for non-diseased, monogamous couples is the pill or the shot. The reason: condoms fail to prevent pregnancy 15% of the time. Studies of couples using condoms for birth control show a consistent 15% pregnancy rate.
Pregnancy is one of the more difficult sexually transmitted consequences.
In a 28 day menstrual cycle, a woman is fertile 4-5 days out of 28. How many days per month is a boy contagious?? Think about that...
Microbiologically speaking, sperm are huge, viruses are tiny. If a condom does not stop sperm, is it MORE effective against a virus?? I think not...
Why do we LIE to our children? I tell the kids, "Anyone who uses the words, condom, sex and safe in the same sentence is not uninformed, they are liars. You should not trust what they tell you any more. They should change the name of 'Health' class to 'Disease' class.
Five years ago, one-third of sexually active high school students had a STD. Now it is one-half. Congratulations, Liberals. You don't educate them but you sure gave them some diseases.
http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002979.html#002979
I like Hugh Hewitt's links. Here is a "lovely" article about the teachers in the Public Schools. I will attest that this article is not the aberration, it is the norm.
Our children are being poisoned.
Don Crankshaw said:
"What I find most annoying is when scientists speak up on topics outside their fields as if they were authorities on it, figuring that, hey, it's science and I'm a scientist. Scientists are, as a rule, very knowledgeable in a very narrow field. Once they go outside, they know less than, say, someone with a history of science degree."
That statement is so true it is frightening. Yo get a PhD (my daughter is a biophysicist just finishing her dissertation and my own work involves 80% work with the full range of scientists), you have to narrow your field of interest so much that you essentially know less about other areas than someone who reads the newspapers.
The classic illustration of this is the entire origins of life debate, where biologists concentrate their laser focus on, for example, genetic means for speciation (without much luck beyond assertions and speculation) while astrophysicists ask questions about probabilities. Most know that their own field is a bit sketchy and speculative, but assume that the other scientific disciplines concerned with other aspects of the macrosystem must have better "evidence". Wrong.