Bush & His War on Science

Conservatives have meddled with science for decades. In 1964, Goldwater’s bid for the presidency was a brute assault on the intellectual world. In 1964, leading scientists challenged Barry Goldwater and his alarmingly anti-intellectual followers. From 1995 to 1999, Gingrich’s Congress was very anti-science.

Bush’s administration (2001–2009) also abused science and distorted data. He took matters based on faith, hardly abided by the rules of evidence, allowed ideology to trample expert opinion, and staffed the government with cronies who ran it incompetently — as we will see.

His administration misinformed the public about the reality of human-induced global warming (he invoked uncertainty), about the number of stem cell lines that would be available for research, he even went against evolution, abortion, and for intelligent design (ID), and creation science. All on behalf of his pro-industry and religiously conservative supporters.

Conservatism is a political philosophy that places a strong value upon preserving traditional social structures and institutions. Science, on the other hand — with its constant onslaught on archaic orthodoxies and its rapid generation of new technological possibilities — presents a challenge to static worldviews. From Galileo to Darwin and beyond, this conflict plays out repeatedly over the course of history.

The Strategy

The classic strategy for abusing science is to manufacture or magnify uncertainties. Do this to create a semblance of controversy where it doesn’t actually exist. The tobacco company, Brown & Williamson, wrote in 1969, “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

When trying to avoid regulation, raise doubt (raise the burden of proof required for action), nitpick individual studies you don’t like, disregard the cumulative weight of scientific evidence and finally say those studies can’t be relied on. Such is the charade perpetrated by those who want “sound science” and better “data quality.” (The Data Quality Act set a far higher bar for scientific proof in government research than had previously existed, calling for time-consuming and costly procedural safeguards like “external” peer review.)

Conservatives have sought to generate “science” solely as a political device for advancing their preconceived objectives that are favorable to their interests — regardless of actual truth.

These science attackers have a built-in advantage over science defenders. It’s much easier to make up something, sow doubt, and spread misinformation than it is to do the hard work required to prove or disprove a hypothesis — i.e. to generate new and reliable facts.

In Defence of Science

Far from mere hunches, scientific theories require repeated confirmation by independent investigators and then broad acceptance by the scientific community.

Science isn’t a democracy. Rather, it uses quality control (peer review) to rule out questionable interpretations. With this process of peer review, scientific claims are carefully scrutinized before being published in reputable journals, results of the experiments must be repeatedly tested by other scientists and scientists must win over their scientific peers. In short, scientific knowledge is the intellectual consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence.

As Steven Pinker said:

The success of science depends on an apparatus of democratic adjudication — anonymous peer review, open debate, the fact that a graduate student can criticize a tenured professor. These mechanisms are more or less explicitly designed to counter human self-deception. People always think they’re right, and powerful people will tend to use their authority to bolster their prestige and suppress inconvenient opposition. You try to set up the game of science so that the truth will out despite this ugly side of human nature.

In this article, we’re going to look at 6 anti-science policies Bush pushed:

1. Anti-evolution
2. Anti-climate change
3. Anti-abortion
4. Anti-embryonic stem-cell research
5. Anti- endangered Species act
6. Anti-healthy diet

1. Evolution

Science has managed to answer one of the most profound questions: where does the human species come from? But, religious conservatives don’t accept it. They don’t like what the overwhelming body of science has to say about where human beings came from. Creationists (like ID theorists) believe the theory of evolution destroys religious belief and leads to moral chaos. This battle over evolution is cultural, not scientific.

America is far more religious than other wealthy nations.

The ID movement crisscrossed the United States arguing that public schools should “teach the controversy.” President Bush followed the anti-evolution script by vigorously advocating the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design. In 2005, he supported teaching ID in public schools — even though the First Amendment dictates the separation of church and state and even though in 1996, Pope John Paul II accepted evolution.

George W. Bush is an evangelist. He famously told Bob Woodward of The Washington Post that he had consulted a “Higher Father” instead of his earthly father, about going to war in Iraq. In 2001, the Public Broadcasting Service produced an 8-part documentary, accompanied by materials designed for use in schools, boldly titled Evolution. This prompted the Bush administration to begin monitoring all PBS productions for “liberal bias” and provided justification for further budget cuts in a government program already on the religious right’s hit list.

Creationists deride evolution as “just a theory,” confusing the colloquial sense of the word “theory” with its very different scientific meaning. The theory of evolution is one of the most robust theories (because of massive testing) in the history of science.

Creation science failed politically and legally because it doesn’t provide any detail that scientists might confirm or refute through future experimentation. It doesn’t explain or predict anything. ID is simply not doing credible science. Instead, the movement appropriates scientific-sounding arguments to redefine science to advance its objectives — a moral and political agenda — one they hope to force on public schools. As scientists have noted, “‘An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason is not a model.”

ID’s approach has often been described as the search to uncover a so-called God of the gaps. Essentially, ID proponents mine the scientific literature, trying to find places where they think they can plausibly charge that evolutionary theory has failed.

In 1986, when the Supreme Court was debating a Louisiana law requiring schools to teach creation science, 72 Nobel laureates signed a brief favoring its overturn. They said, “teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education.”

In 1999, Kansas State Board of Education voted to strip evolution and even the Big Bang from state standards. This prompted a national outcry.

In 2005, during a Pennsylvania court case, the judge proclaimed that ID does not and cannot constitute science because of its appeal to supernatural explanations and because its advocates do not (with rare exceptions) participate in the scientific process by publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Judge Jones concluded that ID is simply “creationism re-labeled.” That, “intelligent design is not science, but merely creation science in disguise.”

Americans are alone in the Western world in their view that evolution is “controversial” rather than a settled mainstream fact.

2004 post-election studies showed that the most reliable predictor of support for President George W. Bush was not religious affiliation but frequency of church attendance. Those who attended church at least once a week voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2004. Monthly churchgoers split their votes almost evenly, while those who attended only a few times a year voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic ticket.

For some good news, in 2020, Scientific American reported evolution education is getting better.

2. Climate Change

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) famously stated, “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate” thanks to emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. With the IPCC’s third assessment in 2001, a strong consensus position emerged: Notwithstanding some role for natural variability, humans are almost certainly heating the planet now through greenhouse gas emissions, and could ramp up global average temperatures by several degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

Requested by the Bush White House, a 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on climate science, confirmed the basic 2001 IPCC findings. In its opening sentences, it states point-blank “greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.”

However, in 2003, the Bush White House controversially sought to edit the climate change section of a draft EPA report. It removed a diagram of the Mann group’s “hockey stick” and inserted a reference to the Soon and Baliunas work. During the 2004 presidential race, Science magazine asked both campaigns whether “human activity” is “increasing global temperatures.” Bush replied, “In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences to do a top-to-bottom review of the most current scientific thinking on climate change. The nation’s most respected scientific body found that key uncertainties remain concerning the underlying causes and nature of climate change.”

Also in 2004, the Bush administration worked actively to prevent the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment — a report commissioned by 8 nations on the work of 300 scientists — from serving as a basis for policy recommendations to address the melting of the Arctic region.

According to NASA in 2005, 2005 was the hottest year in more than a century (now it’s 2020 and 2016).

On the issue of fish contaminated by mercury, conservatives similarly hype uncertainty and cherry-pick science. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), approximately 630,000 newborn children in the United States had dangerous blood mercury levels in 1999–2000, while nearly all of the nation’s rivers and lakes suffer from mercury contamination. However, in a 2003 about-face, the Bush administration’s EPA proposed far weaker regulations.

3. Abortion

Women who abort are less likely to be married or in an intimate relationship. These are factors linked to poorer mental health.

In 2002, the New York Times reported on several cases in which reproductive health information on government websites had shifted, to appease religious conservatives. The UCS charged that an online National Cancer Institute fact sheet had, for suggested several months, the possibility of a link between abortion and breast cancer — a link that certainly doesn’t exist.

From 1994 to 2004, the Government Accountability Office noted, Plan B was the only one of 23 cases in which the FDA had overturned its advisory committee on an over-the-counter drug approval application.

4. Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

Embryonic stem cell research is the study of excess 5-day-old embryos — constituting 150 cells — donated for research by in vitro fertilization clinics.

Why embryo cells? Scientists have long known that once our primordial embryonic cells differentiate into specialized body cells, they generally cannot go back. In other words, embryo cells have the potential to grow into cells from each of the three different “germ layers” of the embryo. Plus, they can divide indefinitely in culture (i.e. they’re practically immortal). Thus, embryonic stem cells might be able to generate a wide range of replacement tissues for human transplantation — potentially leading to cures for degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and diabetes — while also fueling deep new insights into the processes of human development, including the development of diseases.

Tom Goldstein explained that because of their unique attributes, embryonic stem cells could help us bypass four current “bottlenecks” in the development of medical therapies.

1. There aren’t enough sources of tissues for transplantation to meet medical needs at present, but we might grow vast amounts of tissues from embryonic stem cells.
2. Drugs are extremely expensive to bring to market because of the cost of human trials and because animal trials can often lead scientists down the wrong road, but drug discovery might proceed much more efficiently if we could test drugs in human stem cell preparations.
3. We currently lack a complete understanding of the mechanisms by which many diseases develop, but research on stem cells bearing the genetic signature for various diseases would allow for greater understanding of how these conditions emerge (which, in turn, could suggest new possibilities for treatment).
4. We see enormous variations among individuals when it comes to their responses to various drugs and other therapies, but certain kinds of stem cells could eventually lead to therapies specially tailored to individual patients.

Religious conservatives, however, consider this ethically abhorrent. Arguing that an embryo deserves of the same moral and legal protections as fully developed human beings with hopes, dreams and feelings.

In 2001, Bush gave his backing for limited research on existing stem cells. This froze science in time.

5. Endangered Species Act

Passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1973 and signed by Nixon, the Endangered Species Act was deliberately written to be tougher than two previous laws that had failed to curb extinctions.

As the framers of the Act commented 50 years ago, “Who knows, or can say, what potential cures for cancer or other scourges, present or future, may lie locked up in the structure of plants which may yet be discovered, much less analyzed?… Sheer self-interest impels us to be cautious.” The House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries explained, the “value of their genetic heritage is, quite literally, incalculable.”

Richard Pombo, another congressman, commented, “species data is, by its very nature, often vague, ambiguous, and frequently subject to best-professional judgment rather than objectively quantifiable.”

In 1978, TVA v. Hill, the court notoriously affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the nearly finished Tellico Dam project must be permanently halted to protect a tiny fish called the snail darter. In 2001 the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation shut off irrigation water — from Upper Klamath Lake to more than 200,000 acres of agricultural land — to protect a white-bellied bottom-dwelling fish called the shortnose sucker. In the famous 1986 case of the spotted owl, the bird served as a legal surrogate for another environmental aim: protecting the Pacific Northwest old-growth forests in which the owls live. Conservatives were and still are furious about all this.

In its 1995 report, the National Academy of Sciences noted that “human activities are causing the loss of biological diversity at an increasing rate.” Standford conservation biology postdoctoral fellow Kai Chan said, “An overwhelming body of evidence that virtually all recent extinctions and endangerments have human-associated causes.”

6. Healthy Diet

In 2016, the United States ranked 11th highest in Obesity in the world at a cost of $260 billion/year.

In 2003, the WHO released a global strategy on “Diet, Physical Activity and Health,” calling on governments worldwide to battle excessive weight and obesity through means long loathed by many food companies. Such as controls on advertising to kids, taxes on junk foods, and subsidies to promote healthier eating.

The lead scientist, Kumanyika — and other international experts — reviewed evidence linking poor diet to chronic conditions such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cancer. For doing science that produced an official recommendation to “eat less” — a concept that was anathema to many food companies — Kumanyika became a victim in the then politicized battle over the science of obesity.

Conservatives and the U.S. Sugar Association led an all-out attack on this report that dared to suggest a connection between consuming sugar-sweetened foods and poor health. In a letter, the trade group warned the WHO that it would “exercise every avenue available” to challenge the study, including asking congressional allies to block the United States’ funding of WHO. The Bush administration followed with attempts to undermine the World Health Organization’s work.

In 2004, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the “cheeseburger bill” — a legislation exempting food companies from tobacco-style lawsuits charging that their products cause obesity.

Conclusion

The republican party has lost its head. Conservatism is a political movement that often doesn’t care about reality. They flatly refuse to amend their views or follow the evidence where it leads. They don’t consume scientific information dispassionately rather they constantly seek to use science for their political advocacy. Quite frankly, I don’t think they understand science.

As we saw, examples include: distorting the science of climate change, quashing government scientific reports, and stacking scientific advisory panels.

Bush was in a bubble walled off from reality. With a straight face, without a trace of self-consciousness or self-criticism, he said that he rarely read newspapers because that would expose him to “opinions.”

Bush never traveled outside of America. In a joint press conference with President Jacques Chirac in Paris, Bush petty and rudely responded when NBC correspondent David Gregory posed a question to Chirac in fluent French. “Very good,” snapped the president of the United States. “The guy memorizes four words, and he plays like he’s intercontinental.” An amazed Gregory started to reply, “I could go on…,” but Bush cut him off and said, “I’m impressed — que bueno. I’m literate in two languages.”

The House conducted 140-hours of sworn testimony investigating whether President Clinton abused the White House Christmas card list in an effort to drum up new donors. But, it never once subpoenaed George Bush during its first 6 years. The GOP effectively abandoned oversight of a Republican president, weakening Congress’s ability to check the executive. Congress resisted oversight of the Iraq War, launching only superficial investigations into serious abuse cases, including the torture at the Abu Ghraib prison.

Bush chose only advisers who came from the extreme right. He nominated extremely conservative Catholics, John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito, for the Supreme Court. He even nominated his personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court (she didn’t pass). His team took over a year to fill key scientific posts: Food and Drug Administration commissioner (20 months), National Institutes of Health director (14 months), surgeon general (14 months), and presidential science adviser (9 months). Science wasn’t his priority.

In 2004, 48 Nobel laureates, endorsed the candidacy of Democrat John Kerry. Weeks later, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 171 members of the National Academy of Sciences, along with eventually 15,000 scientists, signed a UCS statement denouncing George W. Bush. Distinguished signatories included celebrity scientists such as Paul Ehrlich and E. O. Wilson, and luminaries whose contributions to science and policy alike span nearly half a century.

After Bush’s first term (2005), Colin Powell resigned. Without the backing of intellectuals and scholars, the GOP will prove unable to develop workable solutions that are distinct from Democrats and responsive to national problems. If Republicans want to win back the national consensus, they must first win back 50%+ of the nation’s intellectuals.

Here are some clips of Bush’s absent-mindedness.

We’re not in an information war, we’re in a science war. I know scientists are extremely busy with their own work but I beg scientists to spend some time to do some advocacy. Simply smiling at strangers, a little small talk about the weather, and telling people you’re a scientist provides an opposition to our sheer anti-science online culture and helps people open their eyes.

*Republcans have slowly been power over the last decades. From goldwater’s campaigh, to grinrich’s congress to bush’s 2 terms and then Trump’s term.

To your success,
Nikhil Mahadea