Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

AB3A

Tue Jul 10 18:45:10 -0700 2007

manage

Let me see if I understand this:

The Surgeon General is an appointment made by elected officials within the US government for leading medical policy.  Hmm.  Sounds political to me.  I mean, it's not as if these folks are scientists being told what not to publish.  It's not as if these are family doctors being told that certain procedures are illegal.  They're making policy, not medicine.  The fact that they're medical doctors is merely an issue of background experience.  You wouldn't want a lawyer for Surgeon General, or an accountant leading the Army Corp of Engineers.

Why are we discussing this?

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

Gartogg

Wed Jul 11 01:26:18 -0700 2007

manage

Because it is disastrous to public health if the largest arbiter of what gets funded and what does not in health be political instead of based on helping people. Policy should be motivated by science, not by keeping a particular party in power. Imagine if construction was approved based on whether it was the right color instead of on whether or not it was structurally sound, and you get an idea of what is currently going on with the USSG.

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

AB3A

Wed Jul 11 04:36:22 -0700 2007

manage

How can a funding issue from government not be a political issue?  How can science provide any policy making guidance when the background information is thin or when we're dealing with ramifications of scientific discovery on society?

These are areas of experience, judgment, and yes, Politics.  It's not a dirty word.  At some point, you have to concede that we're not dealing with a problem of mathematics or discovery.  Once we're past that issue, we need to recognize that we ARE in fact dealing with a choice among various notions of what is good or undesirable. 

That's where politics comes in.  I don't like it.  I wish there were some better ways to resolve the disputes.  But until we find them, I suggest that we stop calling that process dirty names and start realizing that we have a duty to participate and to make our voices heard.  Our politicians may be ignorant, but that's only because we let them get elected...

 

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

Gartogg

Wed Jul 11 05:46:12 -0700 2007

manage

Read the blurb: "In what should have been purely scientific areas"

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

Spider

Wed Jul 11 01:44:30 -0700 2007

manage

I think that I would like someone with a medical background to make policy decisions on things medical.

"or an accountant leading the Army Corp of Engineers" .  Funny you should state that, because that is exactly what happened in my country to the scientific organization (est. 1840 there abouts) that I worked for over 30 years. Scientific Directors all made redundant, research activities sent elsewhere, and majority of the dedicated employees, science technicians and all, made redundant.  An accountant was put in charge who had absolutely no knowledge of the workings of the organization.  Governments do this to "save money" (but lose knowledge). Today it costs them just as much, if not more, to run this organization.   Politicians only have the gift of the gab and are generally morons.

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

alchemar

Wed Jul 11 06:23:13 -0700 2007

manage

I was listening to an interview with one of these people, and it was very clear that they were being told what not to publish.  These are also the people that are telling the family doctors what procedures are illegal.  The reson for the office was to make sure that policies were being decided by people with an understanding of what is involved instead of politicians.  Everything that we are allowed to do or not do is decided by someone appointed by or to a political office, that does not mean that everything should be political.

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

AB3A

Wed Jul 11 07:17:32 -0700 2007

manage

Let me make this a bit clearer:  We're not talking about research here.  We're talking about government sponsored research.  While I agree that it's not pretty when politicians squelch publication of certain studies, this situation is not unique.  Nearly all sponsors of research have been known to do such things at various levels of review --some more overtly than others.  Read the book Betrayal: Fraud in Science for an overview of the situation.

One of the telling problems with modern research these days is that it is almost entirely dependent upon government grants.  Research should not be the exclusive province of government funding.  Everyone has an axe to grind.  The problem with government sponsored research is that it often does fall prey to political ploys of one flavor or another.  That's life.  To avoid this problem, we should have competing studies.  The notion that any one party can be made completly impartial is quaint, and frankly out of date. 

We need a free flow of ideas, presumptions, and arguments.  Expecting that to come from one source tasked with making policy is naieve. 

 

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

mcrbids

Wed Jul 11 09:27:47 -0700 2007

manage

One of the telling problems with modern research these days is that it is almost entirely dependent upon government grants.  Research should not be the exclusive province of government funding.

I argue the opposite: there is no place better for pure research than through govt grants. Private grants have implicit within them an expectation of "fruitful" research - that will ultimately result in profit. But the "gubmint" as a funding source at least has the potential for oversight and review of the people. You as a voter and potential source for political pressure have some modicum of say in what gets funded and what does not.

The news here is that the people delegated to make decisions about what gets fund based on science were actually making their decisions for political reasons - what state the research lab is in, etc. That's not a good set of reasons for determining funding, and since it's MY dollar being spent, it upsets me.

Of course, there are lots of good reasons to get upset nowadays...

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

duhavid

Wed Jul 11 11:35:08 -0700 2007

manage

So, if it is good for America, but bad for the administration, it is OK to suppress?

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

AB3A

Wed Jul 11 13:20:02 -0700 2007

manage

Some of the very most heated debates are over differing ideas of  "good."  Your statement assumes a black and white point of view.

 

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

duhavid

Wed Jul 11 13:36:40 -0700 2007

manage

I dont believe that my statement does assume a black and white point of view.

He was appointed, he was the expert, and he appears to have been suppressed
for political and not scientific reasons.   As their appointee, my best assumption is
that he was politically compatible with the appointer's views, and that he came
to his conclusions honestly.

You seem to be arguing that it is OK to have a public trust played with simply
because the appointer is political.  Personally, I think *that* is a large part of
what is wrong with America today.  Your duty should be to the trust and public
office you have assumed, and doing *that* to the best of your ability, not making
sure that your "superior's" talking points are or are not contradicted.


So, all that said, what differing idea of "good" do you believe that the
administration was seeking in suppressing him?  Because he got
the science wrong, or because the conclusion he came to did not
match what they wanted it to be?

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

AB3A

Wed Jul 11 14:05:27 -0700 2007

manage

Honestly, this is where I agree with the concerns here.  Squelching anyone for any reason ought to be cause for explanation. 

I'm not arguing that the squelching of opinion here was illegal, or improper.  However I do feel that we are owed an explanation or at least a set of criteria which we can refer to for the purposes of determining what is reasonable here. 

Surgeon Generals say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

Jim Hill

Thu Jul 12 02:15:13 -0700 2007

manage

I see.  And the Attorney General is an appointment made by elected officials of the US Government for leading legal enforcement policy.

Thanks.  I feel much better now.

Surgeons General say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

phred14

Wed Jul 11 08:56:44 -0700 2007

manage

Perhaps to focus in on a key underpinning of the fray:

Likewise, on the issue of preventing teen pregnancy, Carmona said he was not allowed to deviate from the administration's position that abstinence was the best approach.

In fact, he said, he believes a variety of approaches are needed, including contraception for sexually active teens. But the administration "did not want to hear the science," he said, and instead "wanted to preach."

Actually, I happen to agree - abstinence is the best approach. But I can also acknowledge that it also doesn't get implemented very well in the real world, and therefore you need backups for those pesky real-world situations and people. I won't go saying "We will deny any approach except abstinence," which seems to be more in line with the administration's real stand.

This is one sample issue, but the "stand on "principles against the real world," approach seems to underly many/most of them.

Surgeons General say Enough with the Politics, they want Science

President4242

Thu Jul 12 14:01:46 -0700 2007

manage

It's amazing to me how nobody notices that honesty works best.  Let kids know that not having sex is the only safe sex, that condoms only work 96% of the time, that the pill is only 60% effective, make sure they have access to emotional support and physical access to all of the above and let the kids make up their own damned minds.

Oh, but no, then we'd be "preaching sin" or "taking a chance that they'll make the wrong decision" (depending which side you're on).  Gasp.