|
|
|
|
|
Notícies :: xarxa i llibertat |
|
abús de la ciència
|
|
|
per >>> weblog context |
07 mar 2004
|
|
Més de 60 científics destacats - incloent premis Nobel, principals experts en medicina, antics directors d'agències federals i catedràtics i rectors universitaris - van publicar una declaració cridant a una acció reguladora i legislativa que restauri la integritat científica al sistema d'elaboració de polítiques federals. Segons els científics, l'administració Bush, entre altres abusos, ha suprimit i distorsionat l'anàlisi científica en les agències federals i emprès accions que han minat la qualitat dels panells consultius científics. |
|
Conjuntament amb la declaració, la 'Union of Concerned Scientists' (literalment, Unió de Científics Preocupats) va publicar un informe anomenat Scientific Integrity in Policymaking (Integritat Científica en l'Elaboració de Polítiques) que investiga nombroses al·legacions en declaracions de científics que impliquen censura i interferència política amb la investigació científica independent en l'Agència de Protecció del Medi ambient, l'Administració sobre Aliments i Drogues, i els Departaments de Salut i Serveis Humans, Agricultura, Interior i Defensa.
La declaració exigeix que "cessi la distorsió del coneixement científic amb fins polítics partidistes" de l'administració Bush fa una crida per a la institució d'audiències de control en el Congrés, accés públic garantit als estudis científics del govern i altres mesures que previnguin tals abusos en el futur. La declaració també convida a les comunitats científiques, mèdiques i del món de l'enginyeria per a treballar junts per a restablir la integritat científica en el procés d'elaboració de polítiques. >de *Preeminent Scientists Protest Bush Administration's Misuse of Science*. Nobel Laureates, National Medal of Science Recipients, and Other Leading Researchers Call for End to Scientific Abuses. 18 de febrer, 2004.
context relacionat
> scientific integrity in policymaking an investigation into the bush administration's misuse of science. union of concerned scientists. 2004
> desafíos a la enseñanza de la evolución. 14 de novembre, 2003
> declaración de berlín: ciencia y cultura accesibles para todos los usuarios de internet. 5 de novembre, 2003
> la xenofobia podría ralentizar el progreso científico. 6 de juny, 2003
> la ciencia, dominio público: construir un flujo de conocimiento libre. 15 de març, 2002
> ciencia amenazada: ética y salud pública. 11 de gener, 2002
> artists and scientists in times of war per en roger malina. 23 de setembre, 2001
imago
> science retracement |
Mira també:
http://straddle3.net/context/03/ca/2004_02_24.html
|
Comentaris
|
+info
|
|
per + |
07 mar 2004
|
//context es en tres idiomes :: català, espanyol i angles. els comentaris a aqesta noticia en angles son molt interesants.
From 'Appel contre la guerre à l'intelligence'. France, February 18, 2003: "Tous ces secteurs du savoir, de la recherche, de la pensée, du lien social, producteurs de connaissance et de débat public font aujourd'hui l'objet d'attaques massives, révélatrices d'un nouvel anti-intellectualisme d'Etat. C'est à la mise en place d'une politique extrêmement cohérente que nous assistons. Une politique d'appauvrissement et de précarisation de tous les espaces considérés comme improductifs à court terme, inutiles ou dissidents, de tout le travail invisible de l'intelligence, de tous ces lieux où la société se pense, se rêve, s'invente, se soigne, se juge, se répare. Une politique de simplification des débats publics, de réduction de la complexité... Cette guerre à l'intelligence est un fait sans précédent dans l'histoire récente de la nation. C'est la fin d'une exception française : un simple regard chez quelques-uns de nos voisins européens, dans l'Angleterre post-thatchériene ou l'Italie berlusconienne permet pourtant de voir ce qu'il advient des écoles, des hôpitaux, des universités, des théâtres, des maisons d'édition au terme de ces politiques qui, menées au nom du bon sens économique et de la rigueur budgétaire, ont un coût humain, social et culturel exorbitant et des conséquences irréversibles... Et maintenant ? Fort de cette prise de conscience, il s'agit de partager les luttes et les mobilisations, de fédérer nos inquiétudes, d'échanger ces expériences alarmantes, et d'adresser au gouvernement une protestation solidaire, unifiée, émanant de tous les secteurs attaqués par cet anti-intellectualisme d'Etat qu'aucun parti politique, de droite comme de gauche, n'a encore entrepris de dénoncer. Chacun d'entre nous doit continuer à porter ses propres revendications, à élever ses propres défenses, mais nous devons aussi interpeller collectivement nos concitoyens sur ce démantèlement des forces vives de l'intelligence."
http://www.lesinrocks.com/inrocks/galeries/appel/appel.html
posted by josep at February 24, 2004 11:05 AM
People is the responsible of all that :-(
For the last (20?) years Scientist have been asked "what is the use of what you do?" and funding agencies only fund projects with an applied-usefull goal from where companies can extract benefits, banks capitalize money, conutries feel richer, companies pay taxes and punks and homeless assisted to avoid social revolution...
Science has been completely sold to the market, as we are doing with all the other social services like transportation and health care... great!
so no surprise that now science stinks.
Someone was fascinated by the fact that tobacco leaves do not get eat by insects, alwats nice and shinny... after analysis and wonder, someone found that was the alcaloid molecule nicotine the responsible (somehow) for that. Nicotine is toxic to the insects, nicotine protect the plant. Waow, beatuiful, useless, we already new that tobacco plants had shinny and uneated leaves,nothing else, as Einstein said, science only provides refined explanations to the day-to-day observations... Science analyces and questions, who answer is the priest and the politician. The scientist observing and questioning tabacco plant is not responsible of Monsanto's genetic modified crops. Bussines guys, stock holders, middle class men, and all the rest are the responsibles to endanger the environment producing sterile seeds (bastards!!)
And you are dangerously naive if you think that you could stop Monsanto (and the rest of western capitalistic sciety) by killing the scientist...
You can not stop progress, and you do not need science to progress and develop, trial and error are enough and brought us here from the treas to the skycrappers in few 35.000 years or so...
So, why not link science and society to balance against abusive developments? What it is wrong with penicilline? The man who discover the vaccines is not necesarily rich, the owners or the farmaceutical companies are obcenously rich. The medicines are not bad things, there is not god or evil in nature (despite Bush and followers believings...).
Man is bad, not science. Science may help man to cure it or distroy it, but we will distroy ourselves with stones and sticks if we wish, no science needed (or, otherwise, where did the neenderthals go?)
In fact, Science is useless, it is only about analysis and questioning, about practicing the spell made by nature, about excercising the mind and learning to respect the complexity unattainable of the worlds which are around us...
Science can be useless and futile, but not responsible of... political misuse.
I wish that the social revolucionaries take science as a friend who can not change the world but may help to expolained and appaise the intelectual anxieties... Instead than the surrealistics calls anti-tech made from a cell phone tracked by satellite so my mum sleeps sound at night...
posted by victor at February 24, 2004 01:44 PM
In an essay published in PLoS Biology, two members of the President's Council on Bioethics, Elizabeth Blackburn of the University of California, San Francisco, and Janet Rowley of the University of Chicago, outline their concerns about two recent reports issued by the council--"Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness" and "Monitoring Stem Cell Research" --and about the process that generated these reports.
The first report deals with, among other issues, current research in fertility and aging, and with related advances in biotechnology that could potentially cure genetic diseases or promote longevity. The second report concentrates on stem cell research and governmental funding of this research.
Blackburn's and Rowley's criticisms center on the reports' selective use of science to support what they describe as an ideologically conservative political agenda. The first report raises the specter of "designer babies" and criticizes aging studies as focusing entirely on the desire for immortality. Blackburn and Rowley suggest that these characterizations misrepresent both the current science as well as the diversity of scientific opinion on the research. The second report promotes adult stem cell research while minimizing the limitations of that research, suggesting that research into embryonic stem cells is unnecessary. Blackburn and Rowley again contend that such a report should have presented the entire breadth of scientific research into stem cells and the full range of scientific opinions.
Blackburn and Rowley conclude, "Continuing discussion will form the basis for future decisions on these topics; keeping such discussion open and balanced is of paramount importance."
On February 27, 2004, Blackburn, an outspoken critic of the reports even before this essay, along with William F. May, a retired professor of ethics at Southern Methodist University, were dismissed from the President's Council on Bioethics by White House directive.
See "Reason as Our Guide" by Elizabeth Blackburn and Janet Rowley. Published March 5, 2004
http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/
posted by josep at March 5, 2004 01:45 PM |
|
|
