Friday, May 19, 2006
New Oxymoron: Government Science
. . . just the tip of the iceberg or, as the creationists put it, the leading edge of "the wedge" . . . they are seeking to drive through the heart of American democracy . . .
Now we have this piece from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about how, at a conference on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, a panel entitled: "Are Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs a Threat to Public Health?" was canceled in favor of one entitled "Public Health Strategies of Abstinence Programs for Youth." Furthermore, one critic of abstinence-only educational programs was removed from the schedule and replaced by two proponents, one of whom states his intent is to "serve the Lord through medical missions and the preaching of the Gospel."
As Jay Dyckman, director of a program on censorship and science at the National Coalition Against Censorship, says:The program change at the conference reportedly occurred as a result of pressure from U.S. Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), an outspoken opponent of contraception and comprehensive sex education, who claimed that the program lacked "balance," a complaint highly reminiscent of the call for evolution to be "balanced" in the classroom by teaching intelligent design.
It should probably come as no surprise that the government censored a critic of abstinence-only sex ed. After all, abstinence-only education is itself a form of government censorship, by which certain facts — about contraception, sexually transmitted disease, same-sex relationships and abortion — are simply suppressed or distorted to fit an ideological agenda: the view that only married people should be sexually active.
As with intelligent design, the scientific community has long since reached consensus, but certain politicians don't like the conclusion. A lengthy trial before a federal judge a few months ago presumably disposed of the claim that intelligent design competes scientifically with evolution, for purposes of determining the content of public education. ...
Instead of addressing the question of whether abstinence education poses a public health threat as a medical and scientific question, politicians devoted to the cause of abstinence decided to stack the deck, change the question and predetermine the answer. The participants were rejected and selected based on their viewpoint rather than their expertise. ...
The notion of "balance" is appealing in the abstract, but it has specific meaning at a scientific conference, where an invitation to speak has long been premised on whether a scientist's findings have withstood the scrutiny of the peer review process. Invoking "balance" in this situation, then, is merely a political ploy, a smokescreen for suppressing or diluting unwanted voices, regardless of the truth they may convey. And, even worse, it is an outright assault on the public's right to valid and reliable scientific information.
