White House Issues Long-Delayed Science Guidelines, by Kenneth Chang, explains the new government guidelines put forth by the Obama administration regarding governmental scientific research. The four page document covers scientists’ ability to share their findings publicly and how they administer and document research. This document arose from issues with inaccurate scientific knowledge being shared with the public under the Bush administration. For example, Dr. Grifo discovered that carbon dioxide emissions were a major cause of the rise in global temperatures. However, because the Bush administration did not want to take on the task of global warming with such a breakthrough in the cause, they censored his findings from the public. Even with this step forward in political-scientific openness, many are still cynical as to how much the government still has censorship over what findings are released. Dr. Grifo told the NYT that, “I don’t like the ambiguities. I don’t like the discretion it gives to the agencies.” For now, this short, overdue document will have to do and perhaps serve as a stepping stone for what is to come.
I thought this article was interesting and related to chemistry in that it emphasizes the importance of two major subjects we discussed earlier this year: the importance of being an informed citizen and the ability for scientists to share information with one another and the public.
CHANG, KENNETH. "White House Issues Long-Delayed Science Guidelines." New York Times 18 Dec. 2010: A13. Web. 21 Dec. 2010.
Posted for L. Connor
1 comment:
Claudia Nagy
This review was clear, well supported, and well written. It demonstrated the purpose of the new legislature with clarity, and even provided an example as to why the document is important to the scientific community and society today. The review cited the Bush Administration's misuse of censorship to skew public opinion of CO2 emissions causing global warming. The review justified the new legislature well, explaining that the spread of erroneous facts which can at best lead to misunderstandings within both the public and scientific community.
To improve this review I would have provided more facts or examples, and perhaps cited a few recent scientific findings that will now be affected by this legislation. With more evidence to support the importance of this legislation, the review would have more impact on readers. If the review had cited some recent scientific findings that would be affected by this legislation it would prove the importance of this legislation.
Finally, I was surprised to learn that the Bush administration censored scientific research concerning CO2 emissions and green house gases, but not for very long. It is no surprise that President Bush would be more concerned about keeping the automobile's image safe in stead of informing citizens of their harmful effects on the environment.
Post a Comment