Updated with link below fold.
Yesterday's testimony by a disaffected former Bush official gave the mainstream media the opportunity to resurrect a favored meme: President Bush hates science.
Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona
yesterday testified before a House committee on White House meddling in
Carmona's speeches. Of course, Drs. C. Everett Koop and David Satcher
also complained of political meddling from the Reagan and Clinton
administrations respectively, but this fact was buried deep in the print accounts I've read.
But rather than exploring the complaints of political interference as a "systemic problem"-- Carmona's words -- that transcend party line and administration, news coverage in the mainstream media has sought to single out the Bush administration as anti-science.
Of course, many libertarians and conservatives might argue that the office of Surgeon General is outdated or unnecessary, a relic of a bygone era rendered pointless in the age of widely-disseminated medical information. Indeed, if presidential meddling is a "systemic problem," then isn't some media focus on legislative remedy called for?
And on the other hand, if the office of surgeon general is to be retained,
is it really such a big deal that a president would want an appointee in that office, who serves at his pleasure, to avoid certain controversial matters that would place the surgeon general in the position of advocating something that expressly contradicts the policy of the presidential administration?
But it seems those questions were not what the spin doctors in the media ordered.
Here are the first few paragraphs of coverage from Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar of the LA Times wherein the Bush White House is accused of censorship and political meddling:
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's first surgeon general testified Tuesday that his speeches were censored to match administration political positions and that he was prevented from giving the public accurate scientific information on issues such as stem cell research and teen pregnancy prevention.
"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Dr. Richard Carmona, who was surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, told a congressional committee. "The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation -- not the doctor of a political party."
Early in the Bush administration, when the issue of federal funding for stem cell research arose, Carmona said, he felt he could play an educational role by discussing the latest scientific research. Instead, he said, he was told to "stand down" because the White House had already decided to limit stem cell studies. He said administration appointees who reviewed his speech texts deleted references to stem cells.
His testimony drew a pointed rebuke from the White House. Officials suggested that any breakdown in communicating health information to the American people was ultimately his failure.
"Dr. Carmona was given the authority and had the obligation to be the leading voice for the health of all Americans," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
The Washington Post went a step further, tying Carmona's complaints to those of a former NASA scientist who complained about the Bush administration's stance on climate change policy:
He is the latest in a string of government employees to complain that ideology is trumping science in the Bush administration.
In January, the leader of the National Institutes of Health's task force on stem cells, Story Landis, said that because of the Bush policy -- which aims to protect three-day-old embryos -- the nation is "missing out on possible breakthroughs." And in March, NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni called the Bush policy "shortsighted."
Last year, NASA scientist James E. Hansen and other federal climate researchers said the Bush administration had made it hard for them to speak in a forthright manner about global warming. In 2005, Susan F. Wood, an assistant FDA commissioner and director of the agency's Office of Women's Health, resigned her post, citing her frustration with political interference that was delaying approval of over-the-counter sales of Plan B.
Of course Hansen has been a media darling as the MSM have heavily promoted alarmist claims about manmade global warming by Hansen and others. But nevermind that Hansen's science is not holy writ. In fact, as NewsBusters contributor Noel Sheppard wrote last month, Hansen has been debunked on a few claims by fellow scientists.
But that's an inconvenient truth when you're attempting to manage the news with liberal storylines rather than objectively relay facts to news consumers.
Update (14:07 EDT): Sean Hackbarth of The American Mind points out what he sees as a lame line of attack from Carmona, that the Bushies hate the Special Olympics. Below is an excerpt:
A line of discussion involved the Special Olympics:
And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” that he refused to name.
“I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?’ ” Dr. Carmona said.
The Special Olympics is one of the nation’s premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people, and the Kennedys have long been deeply involved in it.
When asked after the hearing if that “prominent family” was the Kennedys, Dr. Carmona responded, "You said it. I didn’t."
Dr. Carmona refused to name names publicly. I wish he did because his story clashes with President Bush’s praise of the Special Olympics and Eunice Kennedy Shriver its founder.
[...]
Dr. Carmona admits to being “politically naïve” (NY Times reporter Gardiner Harris’ words) so I think he took the question helping the Kennedys more seriously than it should have been. Carmona’s other accusations could be just as weak.
The NY Times could have done exactly what I just did to give a fuller look at Carmona’s accusation and the Bush administration.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Whose administration is it an
July 11, 2007 - 11:51 ET by mattmWhose administration is it anyway?
Someone doesn't buy your agenda and it's because they have some deficiency? What a crock!
I read Carmona's testimony -
July 11, 2007 - 12:07 ET by katleeI read Carmona's testimony - and ideology not only trumps science in this administration, apparently, it also trumps our right
to know the latest science has to offer - we need to get rid of these people!
If your only knowledge of s
July 11, 2007 - 12:17 ET by dervishIf your only knowledge of science is what comes through the surgeon general, you have bigger problems than presidential ideology.
The embryonic stem cell debate is, again, demonstrable pap. It's not ideology vs. science, it's one ideology vs. another ideology.
Some comments on stem cell re
July 11, 2007 - 15:46 ET by stratmanSome comments on stem cell research:
1) Scientists are free to use any stem cell line they wish (unless procurred illegally of course). Any postpartum woman can donate their cord blood for stem cell research, for instance.
2) Federal funding will only be granted if scientists work exclusively with the government approved stem cell lines. If the scientist chooses to use a non-government approved stem cell line, which is perfectly legal, then no federal funding will be dispensed and private funding (or state and local funding) will be required.
3) The government approved stem cell lines are not fully researched nor exploited for their potential as of today, and for many years from now. Research is just beginning. The processes of identifying and exploiting any potential (remember, it's unknown what will result from stem cell research as of yet) is in its infancy. There are no actual complete dead ends for all the lines yet. Nobody knows enough yet on what to do with any stem cell line.
4) Scientists working with non-governmental stem cell lines ensure any and all patented product will remain in their possession. The same can not be completely applied when working with governmental stem cell lines.
5) All funding by the government is free of payback. Any profits derived will not be shared back with the government. A necessary evil for advancement in medicine I suppose. Why can't the model be more like venture capitalism?
Frankly, since stem cell research is so undeveloped and any profits are not monetarily reimbursed to the government, and these profits will be ginormous (new word accepted by Miriam-Webster), I see fewer reasons to pander to the stem cell bullies about expanding federal funding to outside of the government approved lines. No one knows what to do with any stem cell line regardless of its provenance. You want to use your own line then pay for it yourself. Otherwise, how about figuring out what to do with perfectly good government stem cell lines.
Considering the above, the "issue" of stem cell research is nothing more than a contrived wedge issue to drum up money and votes for the Liberals, needlessly and shamelessly.
Facts Don't Matter
July 11, 2007 - 16:50 ET by Junk Science SkepticShame on you for bringing facts into the discussion.</sarcasm>
What I can't figure out is that when science wants to do some cell-tinkering to make corn or rice more pest/disease-resistant, it's considered an unspeakable crime against nature and humanity, worthy of being fought against with arson, murder, and U.N. mandates,
. . . but when the same tinkering is done with human cells (which happens to make some on the far right a bit uneasy), every single scheme and scam that can be dreamed up must be funded carte blanch with U.S. tax dollars.
When the Left is ready to have a rational discussion about GE crops, then maybe we might begin to listen to their ideas for additional tax funding of GE human cell research.
Thompson/Giuliani 2008
The handful of people I have
July 11, 2007 - 20:31 ET by stratmanThe handful of people I have talked to about stem cell research were nearly all convinced that scientists are forbidden to use anything but the government approved lines. They've all seen Michael J. Fox and are convinced he has told them all they need to know in order to understand the situation.
{Seeing video of Fox shortly after his commercial hit the airwaves, I am fairly convinced the tremors we witnessed in the stem cell commercial are not his baseline condition. I venture he had a worsening of his symptoms during the shooting for whatever reason, such as increased stress, and instead of postponing the shoot until his symptoms abated, he decided the effect of his increased tremors would make for a more powerful commercial. A small white lie of sorts, but it made for good political theater.}
Farmers, as well as horticulturalists, have been performing genetic engineering on plants for hundreds if not thousands of years. Today's genetic engineering just speeds up the process by years. This is another classic example of fear mongering politics like the stem cell research funding non-issue.
Carmona was free to say wha
July 11, 2007 - 12:21 ET by Ken ShepherdCarmona was free to say whatever he wanted just as the administration was free to preview his speech texts and edit him/encourage him to stay on the administration's message as to policy matters.
I expect the same of a liberal Democratic president telling a surgeon general to push safe sex, not abstinence only.
The best option might be to end the office of surgeon general, seeing as we have numerous outlets for medical information that are reliable. There's no need for a federal clearinghouse or bureaucrat for this, and if there is "need" for one, it makes sense to address the "systemic" interference that Carmona noted as he cited complaints from Koop and Satcher.
Wow, I'm impressed. Getting
July 11, 2007 - 12:31 ET by sarcasmoWow, I'm impressed. Getting rid of an entire bureaucracy/office, and for-once I wasn't the one to propose it!! My compliments for a surprisingly sarcasmo-like idea, which I'll instantly second, of course. I'll add that Bush surgeon generals have "generally" sucked, and you failed to mention the worst one of all in many ways, Dr. David Kessler. America actually needs to go further than your very-good idea, and get all the way back to 9th amendment individual medical freedom Constitutional rights where big-government entirely butts-out of medicine, but I'm sure that's way-beyond what you want, and let me assure you, I'd be happy enough with just getting rid of this office...It's a start.
JMR
Hey, for once *I* agree wit
July 11, 2007 - 13:29 ET by dervishHey, for once *I* agree with you -- the surgeon general is a leftover from days gone by, like the postmaster general. If it was ever an important post, it certainly isn't now.
But to straighten the facts, Kessler was never surgeon general -- he was head of the FDA. Which just goes to show how superfluous the SG actually is. And he was appointed by Bush I, not Dubya as you imply (perhaps unintentionally).
Oh, I'd disagree that it wa
July 11, 2007 - 13:36 ET by sarcasmoOh, I'd disagree that it wasn't ever important! In the Civil War to maybe WW2 era it was probably important IF you believe in a single centrally controlled agency which can have the final word on who's a doctor, because many medical advances have come inadvertentely through the concentrated medical horror of war. And you're sorta right and wrong about Kessler, I never said Bush 1 appointed him, I'm actually the guy who predicted he'd be the guy who Clinton kept, and he was! I just don't always distinguish my Presidents as much as I should.
JMR
And by the way, one of the
July 11, 2007 - 13:41 ET by sarcasmoAnd by the way, one of the questions that's NOT getting asked of Democrat or Republican candidates by the news media is: "Name one federal office or agency you'd entirely abolish." Unless I've missed it, comic Steven Colbert has still done a limited-but-best job asking that important question, despite the immense increase in the size of government during this administration. Part of media bias is the questions they won't ask and the stories they don't honestly-cover in favor of fluff.
JMR
When did the Surgeon General
July 11, 2007 - 15:12 ET by stratmanWhen did the Surgeon General of their Office have a "final" word on who is and is not a doctor?
As far as I know the Surgeon General was an administrative position in the business of overseeing seamen health care. Eventually the Office evolved into to an overseer of the public's health. The Surgeon General or the Office was not involved on bestowing medical degrees or bonafides.
You're right, it's a separa
July 11, 2007 - 15:26 ET by sarcasmoYou're right, it's a separate set of bureaucracies, centralized by state, that really does that, I'd forgotten (not doing well today!). My point, which I'm not making too well, is that I'd like groups like the AMA to have competition. In an ideal system, more of medicine would be between a patient and his/her doctor, and that's what worries me about how things are currently done. Unlike lawyers, it's almost impossible these days to set off on your own and practice medicine without interference from government and insurance company bureaucracies, which have both gotten bigger and bigger & therefore nastier and nastier. Sadly, I occasionally don't think either Michael Moore or his main detractors may have our best health interests at heart. Of course, maybe it's because I'm currently at war with my own dental insurance company over the status of 2 decade+ old "experimental" technology that looked to me for all the world like an Ipod...
JMR
You do seem a bit off your no
July 11, 2007 - 15:51 ET by stratmanYou do seem a bit off your normal stride today.
My condolences to you on anything having to do with dentistry and/or insurance. The combination is enough to make grown men shiver.
Hope you feel better soon.
Thanks.
July 11, 2007 - 16:00 ET by sarcasmoThe dentist is great, he's a genius and he's on my side, but he does say I'm his worst patient when it comes to not-liking dental pain, and I'm sure I am. I keep asking him for permission to show up drunk, but he won't let me! Through all of this, I found out what a dental scholar he is back when he was training, and he's been really nice for years. But "someone" needs to pay him $480, and that someone has at this point has even lied to the state of Florida's bureaucrats (yes, a libertarian resorted to bureaucrats against a giant and recalcitrant insurance bureaucracy -- may as well give 'em all some work!). Anyway, hopefully they'll finally pay.
JMR
How stupid are you?You think
July 11, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Jack BauerHow stupid are you?
You think that you can only know "the latest science has to offer" by what a government fucntionary says. Wow.
Get a clue. Try reading. Try informing yourself.
Try anything but BITCHING about the "government" being responsible for what YOU know or do not know.
You are an adult aren't you? Start acting like one and take some responsibilty for your own knowledge.
This is also why I think sex
July 11, 2007 - 12:45 ET by Ken ShepherdThis is also why I think sex ed is pretty much unnecessary in public schools. The public library is chock full of reference materials that can answer the pertinent questions a horny teenager may have.
And don't we really want to get kids to visit the library more? I know Katie Couric does.
Ahhh... the public library. T
July 11, 2007 - 13:12 ET by Jack BauerAhhh... the public library. The great emancipator of what we used to call western civilization.
Especially as a 14 year old
July 11, 2007 - 14:00 ET by sarcasmoEspecially as a 14 year old boy, either reading certain passages of that classic novel, "The Godfather" (the movie wasn't the only good thing...) or Chaucer's more-ribald Canterbury Tales such as The Miller's Tale IIRC, which for some reason the teacher DIDN'T need to assign.
JMR
The King is Dead, long live the King
July 11, 2007 - 13:52 ET by exLibFunny how in liberal land, the King (The God of the Bible) is dead, but long live the King (The God of Science) is very much alive and needs to revered, worshipped, not questioned or blasphemed!!!
I also heard about Bush's nominee for AG and his paper that he wrote 20 years ago about the physiology of Homosexual Sex.
Haven't heard too much about it elsewhere or here.
The Surgeon General Office sh
July 11, 2007 - 15:35 ET by bigtimerThe Surgeon General Office should be done away with....
....should of been decades ago....
State Dept. should be gone...talk about enemies within.....
We should be out of the UN too....thank goodness for FOX that has stayed on top of this since Kofi and Son and the Oil for Food scandal...and it continues on and on....