Why is this a "Doh!" statement? I would say it's a good thing for government to stop interfering with scientific research.

I'd have to agree. Even though I am a somewhat religious person, the Government should have no control over the civil liberties of the scientists doing scientific research in America. Unless of course, the research they are doing is of taboo and unlawful persuasion.

I think the issue Stephen is referring to is that these scientists are being paid BY the government to conduct research.

My own libertarian credentials on this issue are somewhat suspect considering my salary and my research where funded by the Navy. The main point is that my research could lead to advances in certain technologies of interest to, say, Sony -- and they won't have to pay a dime to benefit. In this case, it is corporate welfare. However, it could also lead to advances in technology of interest to the Navy, which some libertarians see as a legitimate government agency. I'm rationalizing, I know. I'm a welfare queen.

Stephen's point seems to be that if you're going to lie in bed with politicians for money, then don't get pissed when they ask you to do certain things, and don't complain when people call you a whore because of it.

I think most people with ethics expect to be able to keep them when they work for the government. Inevitably, they find out that the expectation is otherwise.

Most government organisms are loyalty-based, and science is truth-based. Military and para-military groups are especially into loyalty. It's an age-old conflict and excesses occur in both.

It's one of the reasons the scientists at NASA called in Richard Feynman to investigate the shuttle explosion. They knew he would tell the truth and owed no loyalty to anyone.

The issue of which is better will never be resolved by consensus, but it helps to remind the loyalists where their loyalty really lies.

USAFA/DFPY Motto: "Ask for my loyalty, and you will get my honesty; ask for my honesty, and you will get both."

Not all of us in the military place loyalty over truth, especially those of us who are scientists & engineers in uniform.

Opps.

Mark, I'm sorry. I did not mean to imply that scientists in the military place loyalty over truth. I've never been, nor have I personally heard of any one receiving funding from any of the service's research offices being pressured to "fudge" data. It's a hell of a lot harder to do that in the hard physical sciences, anyway, and not very useful.

I appreciate the scientists voicing their collective opinion that although their research is funded by the government, that when they discover something it be used according to it's validity, rather than taken apart or ignored to fit the administration's own predetermined plan. We're paying taxes to fund research when a decision was made already by Bush and his special interests. That's even worse than him just making policy the way he wants for free. He's hurting us doubly. Hopefully, if the Democrats do anything (and let's hope this is all they do) it will be to fully investigate his atrocities in all facets of his presidency, not just war mistakes. Let the parties battle it out and get nothing else done. We'll be better off.

Nick- Remember that this is something both sides do. Clinton was just as guilty as Bush on this front. It is a temptation for whoever is in power. Remember the global warming scare? Ever hear about how the hole in the ozone mysteriously repaired itself after opening up for a little while?
Of course not because too many environmentalists used this to alarm the world into implementing some of their agenda.
How about the study on marijuana funded by the Nixon administration that found no reason for criminalization?
To accuse one person of crimes that are institutional is unfair. It is the power of Big Brother that corrupts and it corrupts in direct correlation with the size of its power. As long as the government has the power to fund research that has nothing to do with the military (Chris, you're not a welfare queen. We need the best naval technology possible) or possibly space exploration (I know many libertarians would say it's not the government's job.) it will corrupt that research for its own purposes.
The beast has a will of its own.

John, I agree that the science shouldn't be funded by the government either. I never claimed anyone to be innocent. I appreciate them voicing their opinions because someone with scientific credibility needs to say something. Their problem points out the inherent flaws in the system, so I think we're on the same page. I'm not a Clinton apologist either. Don't like Dems OR Reps. All crooked.

And, I'm definitely on board with you regarding science for military purposes as one of government's responsibilities.

Hope, though, that you aren't suggesting global warming is a myth created by scientists for their own purposes. Pretty hard to get THOUSANDS of them from many countries to agree on that singular fact, while the few dissenters in their ranks work for polluters. The point is, even if it is not manmade, if it exists it still affects us (the two billion people living near sea level and the four billion people that will be encroached upon by refugees) so if it is possible to do something about it, that should be examined rationally and without prejudice.

Also hard to ignore is the slowing of ozone layer depletion upon the enactment in 1979 of banning CFCs which by 1996 have been completely phased out. The governments of the world may actually have done something right.

For those that argue that environmental protection is not the responsibility of the government, I disagree on the grounds that pollution causes harm to people by affecting our ability to breath clean air, drink clean water, and eat untainted food. Therefore, it is a valid government responsibility to enact and enforce laws that provide "reasonable" protection from pollution. Ideally, we want companies to be clean, efficient, and responsible. Some are, but others are not so they must be prevented from harming the people.

What would deter you from polluting someones backyard? How about the fact you will be made to pay the property owner restitution in a large amount of money for doing so? Restituition is the best deterent to polluters. Unfortunately, the government which is the biggest polluter has sovereign immunity from private property owners suing them for polluting in their backyard. This
sovereign immunity sheild must be removed and people in government must be held liable for the pollution they are doing that is making children and adults alike sick. This is the biggest problem with government meddling with science. Until we hold each other and government responsible through the threat of say thousands of dollars in restitution to the injured party, as well as separate science and government, we will not see an end to pollution problems. Please ask yourselves what would really deter you from polluting? The threat of being sued for thnousands of dollars in restituition for the harm you have done and being required to do community services or only the threat of probation or a year in jail?

Everything I recommend as a solution is based on the idea of a libertarian government with limited responsibilities. I certainly would not expect our current government to protect us from anything. They are usually the root problem.