One of our contributors regularly reads Nature and Science magazines. So when she read this BBC article by Paul Reynolds (chronic pro-Bushie), she had a strong response. The article makes it seem the science community just can't make up its mind about Bush and that Kerry amd Bush don't differ all that much on science issues except on stem cell research.Our editor's response: " WHAT ARE THEY SMOKIN' AT THE BBC? In the past three years, I don't think I recall seeing a single real pro-Bush piece in either Science or Nature!' says our contributor. "But in the past year, I've seen PLENTY of articles and editorials critical of Bush's policies - covering everything from his systematic weeding out of researchers who refuse to rubberstamp his agenda, to igored or suppressed studies. One 'questionnaire' doesn't change that."

Grist Magazine: "Another day, another batch of scientists ticked off at the Bush administration. This week, it's the Recovery Science Review Panel, an independent board of biologists and ecologists charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service with studying the effect of hatchery salmon on wild salmon populations. The panel claims that its report, which was critical of the Bush administration's proposal to include hatchery salmon in its determination of the size and health of salmon runs, was disregarded by policymakers. To publicize their findings, panel members published an editorial today in the journal Science. At issue is the possible removal of a variety of salmon populations from protection under the Endangered Species Act. Robert Paine, a member of the panel: 'The science is clear and unambiguous. As they are currently operated, hatcheries and hatchery fish cannot protect wild stocks.'"

Here's a statement from Science In Policy: "The Bush administration justifies environmental policies by misusing and misrepresenting science. The administration's harmful positions on climate change, pollution, forest management, and resource extraction ignore widely accepted scientific evidence. When the administration invokes science, it relies on research at odds with the scientific consensus, and contradicts, undermines, or suppresses the research of its own scientists. Furthermore, the administration cloaks environmentally damaging policies under misleading program names like 'clear skies' and 'healthy forests.' As a result, the public and the media often wrongly believe that this administration uses sound science to help promote a healthy environment. In reality, the best available science indicates that President Bush's policies will cause and exacerbate damage to the natural systems on which we all depend." If you are a concerned scientist, add your voice to the cause!

We have been warning America about Bush's abuse of science since 2001! Here's one sample, from Cheryl Seal: "While perhaps as many as 2,000 different researchers cumulatively contributed peer-reviewed work to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that concluded that global warming is not only real but a serious problem for the planet, this administration has instead turned to rightwingnut 'scientists' like S. Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, and Steve Milloy whose willingness to testify to just about anything for cash, from the health benefits of DDT to the 'unreality' of global warming, has made them the darlings of the rightwing corporate front groups."

Cheryl Seal cites examples of Bush "sound science": "His 'stem cell expert' was John Mendelsohn, a former Enron executive who was investigated for failing to inform patients participating in a colon cancer drug trial (ImClone) that he had a major financial stake in the outcome; his pick for head of the FDA advisory panel that review's women's reproductive health drugs is David Hager, who recommends Scripture readings and prayers for everything from headache to premenstrual syndrome...meanwhile, Michael Wetzman, chief of pediatrics at Rochester General Hospital and author of many publications on lead poisoning in children, was removed from the CDC's panel on childhood lead poisoning and replaced with a doctor with strong ties to the lead industry."

From Nature Magazine: "If they want to stimulate technological innovation, governments must do more than pour money into research, according to a new study. They should legislate in favour of the goal, it suggests. Regulation spurs technological development, say researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. Their patent audit shows that techniques for controlling the emission of poisonous sulphur dioxide from fossil-fuel burning might have evolved more slowly without EPA restrictions on emission levels. The findings might have a bearing on the US government's much-vaunted drive towards a hydrogen economy, in which hydrogen would be used as a clean fuel. The Bush administration has pledged $1.7 billion to develop a non-polluting hydrogen vehicle. That objective might be reached sooner if the commitment is accompanied by legislation that penalizes the use of fossil fuels."

Charles Levendosky writes, "This year the editor of Science wrote that there is growing evidence that the Bush administration 'invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation.' ... The administration ... dropped three national experts in lead poisoning from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and appointed replacements who had ties to the lead industry, including an industry consultant who had testified that a lead level seven times the current limit is safe for children's brains. ... The White House refused to let the Environmental Protection Agency conduct analyses on air-quality proposals that differ from Bush's 'Clear Skies' initiative. If a scientific analysis differs from the administration's viewpoint, the analysis is trashed - and with it good public policy. ... Billions of tax dollars are spent by these agencies for research and analysis, but the American public can no longer rely on the scientific accuracy of the information they provide."

Bush is gutting scientific oversight boards, replacing key people with corporate plants or "scientists" who will keep his religious zealot supporters happy. One committee charged with helping to protect public health has been jettisoned by Bush because it recommended FDA oversight of the increasingly lucrative genetic testing industry, which had previously been free of such oversight. Bush also plans to fire most members of the committee responsible for assessing the hazard posed by chemicals in the environment and replace them with former chemical industry toadies. Bush is also purging a committee that was devoted to making sure that gene testing was regulated in a way that protected citizens from abuses by employer or insurers. "This is a real turnaround. It's bad. It's terrible," said Neil Holtzman, an emeritus professor at Johns Hopkins University who chaired the HHS task force that led to the committee's creation.