_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Loom

February 05, 2004

Unsound unscience

Check out Chris Mooney's post on the latest move in Washington to gut government science, which cloaks itself in bogus terms like "sound science." This dreadful campaign probably won't get much attention in the national media, but its effects--on conservation, climate change policy, and so on--could be profoundly bad.

Posted by Carl at 7:18 AM
  Comments and Trackbacks

"Sound science" is a term that should be reserved for the STUDY of sound. I'm a pianist. My interest really sparked when I saw the headline...alas, I was doomed to disappointment. I think that whomever devised the phrase liked the consonance of the phrase rather more than the actualities of the situation (vis a vis "real" science}.
But that's Washington for ya.

Posted by Diane on February 5, 2004 10:34 AM | Permalink to Comment
More attempts to legislate science

Excerpt: Chris Mooney attended an Oversight Hearing on “The Impact of Science on Public Policy”, and the news is not good: The House Committee on Resources' "sound science" hearing I

Read the rest...

Trackback from Pharyngula, Feb 5, 2004 12:34 PM

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see this particular campaign as having much of an impact, given this is the same strategy Republicans have been using since they first took control of Congress. There really isn't anything here I haven't heard before from this or that Republican lawmaker (and more than a few Democrats as well).

Posted by Walt on February 5, 2004 10:22 PM | Permalink to Comment

  Post a Comment
 
Name:   
Email:   
URL:   
Comments:
  Remember personal info?
   
   
 
 
  Email this entry to a friend
Email this entry to:   
Your email address:   
Message (optional):   
 

  Related Entries