Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S. Pushing Conservative Science

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the badthink dept.

United States 1036

mozumder writes "Does abortion lead to breast cancer? Does condom use lead to increased sexual activity? According to the government, the answer is now inconclusive. The New York Times has a story on how the government is altering low-level scientific conclusions to satisfy conservatives. Will this lead to a mistrust of the government? Or is the government now correct?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is bullshit.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975560)

Police state here we come.....

Since when... (5, Funny)

SoVi3t (633947) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975562)

Will this lead to a mistrust of the government? Umm, since when was the government actually trusted?

Re:Since when... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975697)

Hell, the whole U.S. Constitution is *BASED* on mistrust of government. Healthy thing if you ask me.

Newspeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975563)

The government was always right. They've Never changed their stance on the issue!

Besides, we should be worrying about the war with Iraq!

(of course it's always been iraq!)

Well it should be OBVIOUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975566)

That abortions do lead to breast cancer, because..

Um.. because...

Wait, what?

Re:Well it should be OBVIOUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975587)

The theory is that a link may have to do with hormone changes.

Re:Well it should be OBVIOUS (1, Informative)

LUN!X (621212) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975684)

Hormonal cycles are radically disrupted by an aborted pregnancy. Ever been around post-abortive women? You know what I'm talking about. There's almost always a fair amount of internal damage when tools are used, depending on the method of operation. The vacuum device (sorry.. don't know the name) that collapses the skull has a sharp edged attachment and it's difficult to maneuver. That's a pretty confined space to work in, after all.

Kinda related... I read a book recently which contained some rather compelling evidence for the theory that bras (the kind with wires - not sports bras) contribute to breast cancer.. seems the wires restrict the flow of lymph and the toxins build up. Free radicals accumulate to ridiculous levels in women who wear their bras overnight. I actually know this chick who wears one to bed all the time. Try googling for "breast cancer"+lymph+bras or something... ?

I doubt anybody here cares, but if you really want to prevent breast cancer, have a kid early. Breast cancer rates are less than half of 'normal' if you successfully bear a child before the age of 26. This does not apply to men as far as I know. OK. Have a nice night.

There may be a scientific basis (5, Insightful)

The Tyro (247333) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975658)

I hate to be a party pooper, but there actually may be something to the abortion theory. To be fair, however, it probably has little to do with the act of abortion itself.

The human breast does not reach full maturity until at least one pregnancy is completed. If a person has multiple abortions and never carries a pregnancy to term, their risk for breast cancer COULD be higher, but it may be because of never having children; the fact that the woman aborted all her pregnancies is just the method. She could just as easily be a spinster or nun, and carry the same risk.

It's shortsighted to automatically assume that science is bad, simply because it contradicts some concept one holds dear. Look at the research objectively, and judge it on its merits.

Knowledge is Good.

Re:There may be a scientific basis (3, Informative)

videodriverguy (602232) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975733)

Did you read the study done on 1.5 million women? Is that not enough 'evidence' for you? Or perhaps you would prefer the average American study, on 1000 people with massive uncertanties.

How about women who don't breast feed? Wouldn't that make just as much difference. And what about miscarriages, as someone else pointed out.

As someone who also posted this very same article earlier (but was rejected), I have to say that the point here is they are CHANGING the sites to further political agendas. A very bad thing, IMHO.

Sadly, the only thing surprising about it (to me) was that the media kept this so quiet. Wonder what's next (and I really don't want to think about that)?

'UNBIASED Knowledge is Good' - any other kind is Bad.

Re:There may be a scientific basis (2, Insightful)

cheezehead (167366) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975738)

The human breast does not reach full maturity until at least one pregnancy is completed. If a person has multiple abortions and never carries a pregnancy to term, their risk for breast cancer COULD be higher, but it may be because of never having children; the fact that the woman aborted all her pregnancies is just the method. She could just as easily be a spinster or nun, and carry the same risk.

In other words, don't confuse correlation with causation...

And this is suprising??? (1)

sickboy_macosX (592550) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975569)

It is just to make sure all the PC is adressed and everything is Politically Correct because heaven forbid someone is offended by the government. It doesnt suprise me, and it shouldnt suprise you, we should be used to the governemtn changing things. I wouldnt be suprised if they change things to make a case for us to go to war.

Not surprised (4, Insightful)

smagruder (207953) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975571)

You see, there *are* consequences to *not* voting, Virginia.

What else is there really to comment on?

Actually... (0, Offtopic)

jabbo (860) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975668)

Seeing as to how Bush stole the election, and DC cannot elect a Congressman or Senator with voting rights, I'm not sure I see your point...

Re:Not surprised (5, Interesting)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975671)

The more I think about it, the more I like the system that Ecuador uses.
Voting is mandatory. You want the government services available to citizens? Vote, otherwise you get what's available to legal aliens. While I'd love it if everyone understood thieir civic duties as well as they do their civil rights, which would make this idea unneccesary, the fact is, people don't vote often enough, as a rule.
And I know there will be those screaming about secrecy of the vote, etc.Note: I didn't say keep track of who you voted for, I said keep track of WHETHER you voted or not. Should be easy enough to do, given the near-universality of SSN's and the like.

Re:Not surprised (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975705)

They already keep track of who voted... I have to give them my name before they give me my ballot. So yes, this would be very easy to implement. I would be concerned, however, about people going in and randomly filling out a ballot just to keep their govt. services.

Re:Not surprised (1)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975752)

I would be concerned, however, about people going in and randomly filling out a ballot just to keep their govt. services.
It has led to some... interesting candidates getting elected, such as "El Loco" Bucaram.
But as it stands now, the U.S. has elected a ex-pro wrestler as a governor, a convicted crack felon as a mayor, and in the 80's, Arizona had a governor, Ev Mecham, that made the worst of the current political crop seem tame in comparison. Given these examples, produced by the status quo, I'd be willing to give it a shot. :)

Re:Not surprised (2)

Exiler (589908) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975740)

Then you have lazy, ignorant, and just plain stupid people voting just becuase they have to and circling a random name on the ballot.

Re:Not surprised (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975699)

Nah, it's just an open source businessmodel!

1: Write free software.
2: ?
3: Pushg Conservative Science.
4: Profit!

There's plenty of liberal science going on too. (-1, Troll)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975574)

Just to let you guys know that Clinton era science is still alive and well:
This story [washtimes.com] talks about the Federally funded study that measures porn arousal. The scientist in charge is the same guy who said homosexuality was genetic. The real news is that people with conservative hypothesis are getting funded. Why is it wrong to have a conservative hypothesis? Isn't this science, where the evidence should dicate the truth even if its uncomfortable to certain political persuasions. If you never have a conservative hypothesis the chances are that you'll never have a conservative conclusion.

Re:There's plenty of liberal science going on too. (2, Insightful)

kedi (583806) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975594)

From teh article: "The earlier statement, which the National Cancer Institute removed from the Web in June after anti-abortion congressmen objected to it, noted that many studies had reached varying conclusions about a relation between abortion and breast cancer, but said "recent large studies" showed no connection. In particular, it approvingly cited a study of 1.5 million Danish women that was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1997. That study, the cancer institute said, found that "induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer."

The Danish research, praised by the American Cancer Society as "the largest, and probably the most reliable, study of this topic," is not mentioned in the government's recent posting, which says the cancer institute will hold a conference next year to plan further research."

Re:There's plenty of liberal science going on too. (4, Insightful)

Frymaster (171343) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975618)

the post reads "altering" not "funding".

of course we're all in favour of science being funded... it's the being altered part we should be worried about.

Re:There's plenty of liberal science going on too. (1)

fingers010 (633806) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975620)

If you look at what the Times is whining about you won't see anything that is new science. Abstinence has been empirically proven to be more effective at preventing pregnancies and the transmission of STDs than condoms or any other form of contraception. Isn't it likely that these changes are just rollbacks of scientific assumptions that were pushed by the previous administration? Don't forget that Planned Parenthood and their sympathizers gave quite a bit more campaign funding to the Democrats than they do the Republicans.

Re:There's plenty of liberal science going on too. (1)

cheezehead (167366) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975670)

Abstinence has been empirically proven to be more effective at preventing pregnancies and the transmission of STDs than condoms or any other form of contraception.

Duh. In related news: not driving a car at all has proven to be more effective in preventing injuries than seatbelts or airbags.

By the way: other than condoms, I know of no form of contraception that prevents transmission of STDs. Except for abstinence, of course...

Re:There's plenty of liberal science going on too. (2)

etymxris (121288) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975632)

Why is it wrong to have a conservative hypothesis?

As you said in another sentence, "evidence should dictate truth". There shouldn't be a conservative hypothesis, or a liberal one either for that matter. Politics should have no say in what is determined to be true. Politics should be about forming policies based on what we find the truth to be.

Unfortunately, we get things like "creationist science" becoming a "conservative hypothesis". We also have liberal advocates pushing for a conclusion that burning down rainforests will lead to the imminent demise of humanity.

Re:There's plenty of liberal science going on too. (3, Insightful)

fingers010 (633806) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975651)

A hypothesis is always biased and there is nothing wrong with that. All hypothesis are based on an opinion of what the study/research/experiment will show BEFORE it is done. The findings may or may not support the hypothesis.

Politics determines what truth is looked for. Science determines if it is found.

Re:There's plenty of liberal science going on too. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975706)

You know, that is really a great open source businessmodel.

1: Write free software.
2: ?
3: Fund study that measures porn arousal.
4: Profit!

Re:There's plenty of liberal science going on too. (5, Insightful)

cheezehead (167366) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975714)

Ok, I'll bite...

The scientist in charge is the same guy who said homosexuality was genetic.

First, I guess you have conclusive proof that this conclusion is wrong?

Second, even if that was wrong, how would that disqualify the scientist from doing other studies? Are you suggesting he is biased (and therefore not a 'real' scientist)?

Why is it wrong to have a conservative hypothesis?

No scientist should have a 'conservative' or 'liberal' hypothesis. In that case he is a politician who conducts something dubious that is labeled 'science'.

Isn't this science, where the evidence should dicate the truth even if its uncomfortable to certain political persuasions.

Here you actually make sense. However, science is not a democracy where 'liberal' conclusions should be balanced with 'conservative' conclusions. Truth is truth.

If you never have a conservative hypothesis the chances are that you'll never have a conservative conclusion.

There are countless examples that this is not correct. I'll recite one from memory. Years ago there was a lot of fuss about the dangers of genetically manipulating micro-organisms to produce all kinds of useful mdicines. The fear was that this could accidentally produce a 'killer bug' that would wipe out entire populations. Many studies that tried find evidence for this doomsday thinking concluded that the whole thing was much ado about nothing.

Many studies start with hypotheses that are proven wrong. Most of the scientists conducting these studies report these conclusions. It's called honesty, integrity, or whatever.

Re:There's plenty of liberal science going on too. (1)

Equinox (26682) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975747)

You say truth is truth. Once thing I've found out in life is truth often depends on your frame of reference. But I've been known to be wrong before...

Watch your language (2)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975734)

Why is it wrong to have a conservative hypothesis? Isn't this science, where the evidence should dicate the truth even if its uncomfortable to certain political persuasions. If you never have a conservative hypothesis the chances are that you'll never have a conservative conclusion.

What does a study of porn arousal have to do with liberalism at all? Maybe it has a lot to do with your straw-man version of liberalism, but I don't see the connection.

I'm not a scientist for a living. However I did major in two sciences in undergrad (physics and chemistry), was a chemist for a few years, and spent a year in a neuroscience graduate program before quitting and going into programming. So while I may not be an authority on science and the scientific community, I do know enough to at least be familiar with the language and philosophy of science.

At no point during that time did I ever hear the terms "conservative hypothesis" or "conservative conclusion" being uttered by anyone I met in that world. The same goes for "liberal science", "liberal hypothesis", etc. That sort of language is completely foreign to the scientific world. People just don't talk that way! The very words "conservative" and "liberal" are strongly suggestive of political bias, and political bias is well known for poisoning science and producing garbage. It destroys the objectivity of your analysis of the available evidence.

It even goes beyond left-wing/right-wing issues. The scientific world has its own sort of political intrigue, strong personalities, pet theories, competition for limited funds, etc. It can be very difficult sometimes, but professionalism in science demands that you leave your political hangups at the door. If you don't, you end up producing garbage. In the worst cases you can retard the scientific advancement of an entire culture. [everything2.com]

In the Soviet Union too (1, Troll)

kedi (583806) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975575)

They altered scientific conclusions to satisfy conservatives too.

Re:In the Soviet Union too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975578)

I officially declare that no one is allowed to make a Soviet Russia joke from the parent post. It is much too obvious and easy.

Tim

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975590)

They alter conservatives to satisfy scientific conclusions too!

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975606)

...scientific experiments alter YOU!

Bush sucks. (-1, Insightful)

grytpype (53367) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975576)

This administration lies about everything -- every goddamned thing -- as a matter of permanent policy. They will say anything that they want the public to believe, while they do whatever they want. And what they want is to get money for themselves and their big campaign contributors, that is absolutely all they are about. What a disaster for the country. The worst administation ever, the American version of a "kleptocracy."

Re:Bush sucks. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975612)

So..... I take it you're not going to vote for Bush in 2004?

Re:Bush sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975621)

The government lies about everything? Since when?

Re:Bush sucks. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975622)

Thank you CONSUMER #4483928323423. We have updated you TIA profile. You are now restricted from buying anything or using any goverment service. If you wish to appeal please deliver a letter to our offices in Alaska.

Re:Bush sucks. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975725)

That can also be said about free software fanatics. Everyone knows that there is no service&support market for most software, still people and companies are being lied to on daily basis right here on slashdot.

Its a "Kakistocracy". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975741)

Which is a government by the worst folks in society.

We've had one a lot longer than George Juinor's been in office though.

The kleptocracy started IMHO when the federal government instated the income tax.

Re:Bush sucks. (4, Interesting)

Martigan80 (305400) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975748)

And what they want is to get money for themselves and their big campaign contributors, that is absolutely all they are about

Isn't capitalism great? This is what happens when governmental Ideals mix with economics. It's also interesting that any country that America helps has a EULA about allowing American businesses in to help "stimulate" the economy. Yeah we see how great it's going right now. And don't give me this stuff that it is because of 9/11 that's what these great accountants tell the share holders in hopes that they don't sell. Much of this has been brewing way before that. It also doesn't help that politicians have so many ways to acquire money from different sources. It will always happen and will continue to happen in our country because of people that would read this and call me a troll because I think the economy and government is too corrupted, instead of going out and voting, hell I would even be happy if people actually took the time to learn about the candidates. In fact how many people here even go to a local council meeting, or city meeting? Oh well this isn't a politics story it's about conservatism, or the conservatism of the governments medical ideas. Now we all get Smallpox vaccine, well not all of us the Government doesn't want to be blamed for the few deaths that will happened, they would rather give you the option to take it, then ask you to fill out a waiver of responsibility.

This may shock some (5, Interesting)

nizcolas (597301) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975577)

but most readers familiar with the way science "works" won't be all that shocked. Scientific results are frequently altered or completely made up for one reason. Money

Most science is funded by a sponsorship of some kind. Very little is done out of the scientist pocket. Because of this, science becomes a sort of business model. As long as the scientist is producing results, his funding continues. See where this is going?

Is this going to lead to a distrust of government.? Doubtful. It may wake up a few but the vast majority either know now, or will never know.

Abortion & Cancer lawsuits in Australia (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975579)

There have been legal cases successfully brought in Australia by women who have not been informed about the majority of studies suggesting a link between abortion and cancer. I'm sure *someone* will come up with links galore.

Re:Abortion & Cancer lawsuits in Australia (5, Insightful)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975598)

the majority of studies suggesting a link between abortion and cancer

You didn't post any links or references, so I'm curious. Did this "majority of studies" find a link between abortion and breast cancer, or a link between not carrying a pregnancy to term and breast cancer?

Legal victories do not determine good science. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975753)

Aside from the fact that expert witlesses can be found that will testify for any idiot's theory there is the fact that there is no one in the courtroom with any incentive to assure that good science is used.

This new science is amazing! (5, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975581)

Tell me again how a sheep's bladder may be used to prevent earthquakes!

Re:This new science is amazing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975718)

...and that, my Liege, is how we know the earth to be banana shaped.

bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975582)

jesus.. why does it always have to be this way?

al gore in 2004

but really i wish i had something intelligent to say right now but i don't. this is just sad and dissapointing.

Politics of Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975591)

The orthodox view on /. is going to be that Bush and Republicans in general are a bunch of crackpots and that that explains the changes. I think we also ought to consider that maybe science DOESN'T exist in a political vacuum. Yes, in math and physics and large parts of chemistry we can quantifiably say something is or is not true. But with most bio-science, especially medical science, the limit of our knowledge is described by a statisitical measure applicable to a specific experiment under a specific set of conditions. Given a set of experiments looking at a certain issue, there are bound to be conflicting pieces of evidence that need to be interpreted. In the US, the major interpreting organs are federal insititutions; political institutions. ANY judgement made by these organs is inherently political. The Times didn't find the (politically aware) choices made by these organs under Clinton so shocking because the Times shared alot of the politics of the Clinton Whitehouse.

This whole story is actually a really great look at the liberal bias of American media, arising not as part of some conspiracy, but rather from the simple fact that a number of journalists are in fact liberals and thus see policies of the Democratic Party as "normal" or expected and only Republican policies as obtuse or idiotic.

Re:Politics of Science (2)

divide overflow (599608) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975730)


This whole story is actually a really great look at the liberal bias of American media, arising not as part of some conspiracy, but rather from the simple fact that a number of journalists are in fact liberals and thus see policies of the Democratic Party as "normal" or expected and only Republican policies as obtuse or idiotic.

Your facts are a bit TOO simple, as they ignore a critical reality. By and large journalists have their work edited and reviewed by editors and managers...gatekeepers who were carefully selected by ownership/management to reflect the editorial desires of those who control the business. These gatekeepers, by and large, are NOT liberals. And they control what gets published/aired. It has always been this way and this reality won't change anytime soon.

That's no news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975593)

Every government does its best to keep its power intact, hiding/altering information if necessary. Science's mission is to discover and demonstrate how things work, then publish the results in order to inform as much people as possible.
When Governments ans Science interests collide, who has the more power silences the other.

Does the name Galileo sound familiar?

Re:That's no news (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975628)

Yeah but Galileo lived in the 16th/17th centuries, when the church's power was supreme, and countries were ruled by power-crazed morons... Now you mention it, part of that does sound familiar...

Why should this surprise anyone? (1, Troll)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975596)

We all know that Bush and his cronies want to set the clock back 50 years. After all, the last time that the president and both houses of Congress were republican was then - In the Eisenhower administration. Do you really think the whole Trent Lott fiasco was because he "misspoke himself"? Fact is, he just got too cocky...but you notice that it took Bush a long time and a lot of hot water before he distanced himself from Lotto. Besides, daddy Bush is running the country, with help from old buddy: "dickie boy" Cheney.

Re:Why should this surprise anyone? (0, Offtopic)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975739)

Where's a mod point when you need one :p

personally... (2)

pavera (320634) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975597)

I can see how the abortion/breast cancer issue is blatant suppression of scientific evidence,
however, reading the article the information about condom use seems very accurate to me, and very similar to the information I was taught in middle/high school sex education, condoms work alot of the time, but the only truly sure way to stay safe is abstinence, or monogamy...
not that most of the slashdot crowd should care eh?
I mean really a post about sex on a geek website, not having to do with pr0n... come on guys... really..

Re:personally... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975640)

What never, ever gets taught in SexEd is the concept of risk management.

The pro-chastity crowd try to scare teens into not having sex by showing examples of STDs, cervical cancer, and shouting about teen pregnancy. The other side keep on chanting the mantra that condoms make it safe.

What's needed, but seems to be rarely given, is advice that using contraceptives and being monagamous reduces the *chance* of pregnancy and/or STDs, but the *consequences* if you're unlucky are still severe.

The only thing that can be done is try to supply the facts in a way that some of them might sink in.

Re:personally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975721)

A-men. And don't think young people (I'm old, I said "young people") can't smell scaremongering a mile off. Better to just lay out what the options are, because, in the end, they're making their own decisions.

~~~

Re:personally... (1)

Blikkie (569039) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975727)

I can see how the abortion/breast cancer issue is blatant suppression of scientific evidence, however, reading the article the information about condom use seems very accurate to me, and very similar to the information I was taught in middle/high school sex education, condoms work alot of the time, but the only truly sure way to stay safe is abstinence, or monogamy...

Well, of course abstination and monogamy are the best ways to prevent the transmission of STD's, but I will tell you a secret: normal people don't care that much and will have sex no matter what, so if they are gonna have sex they'd better wear their raincoats. While slowing down STD's they help preventing teenage pregnency's as well, what a deal.

Gheesh, is trying to repress inevitable urges of humankind the best thing you liberal Americans can come up with? Glad I am member of a party that has a more realistic view.

What about... (5, Funny)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975600)

I don't blame them. According to the studies I've heard, I should be blind now. I haven't had any real problems other than needing to shave my hands once in a while.

I blaim Bush (1, Flamebait)

macmurph (622189) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975601)

I assume that Bush is attributable to this. Hes tried to fuck the environment, start a war, increase oil consumption, and now brain wash the masses. Hes going to hell, plain and simple.

Re:I blaim Bush (0, Flamebait)

intermodal (534361) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975724)

"Hes tried to fuck the environment, start a war, increase oil consumption, and now brain wash the masses."

You say "start a war" like it's a bad thing. I, and many other citizens of the United States, believe that we should have finished the job 10 years ago. As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, Iraq is running scared. Which would you rather have, a scared animal (who believing he has nothing to lose, will stop at nothing) or a dead animal? I can't think of a worse thing than an opponent with nothing to lose by anything up to and including death.

Next thing you know... (2, Redundant)

Arkan (24212) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975604)

... some archives are "reinterpreted" so that Watergate never happened, first A-Bomb scientists never disagree with its use, and Bush never choked on a pretzel.

Welcome to 1984... well, actually 2003, but short term previsions are always optimistics.

--
Arkan

Roles changing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975609)

Why is it that USA resembles more and more CCCP and Russia seems to become the dream for capitalists. Does it have something to do with
the changing polarity of the earth's magnetic
poles? Actually, I'm becoming increasingly assured that the communists are leading the
USA and capitalists are in lead in Russia.
But where the nazis are?

YES, of course! (2)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975615)

Condom use leads to increased sexual activity which causes more "accidents" which is why America has a much larger population (density) than China!!

I hope I'm not trolling, but it seems to me as if the government should have something better to do. This might not "wake up" the average citizen, but I think that I've lost even more faith in my country while still considering it the best in the world.

God bless America, we sure as hell need it.

Re:YES, of course! (-1)

Bitter Old Man (572131) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975646)

The U.S. does not have a larger population density than China you retarded fuckwit.

Re:YES, of course! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975695)

The U.S. does not have a larger population density than China you retarded fuckwit.
Great example of having a bug in their code and setting off the sarcasm bit. Unfortunatly, s?he will probbly be like MS and say that we have fixed the problem only to find that the next post has some new couple of bugs.

More suggestions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975619)

* Does less rain lead to drought?
* Does constructing new water dams lead to more earthquakes?
* Does lawn mowing improve grass growth?
* Do atheists believe in God?
* Do silly questions need an answer?

That whoosing sound you hear, (4, Insightful)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975627)

is all the liberal/anarchists knees jerking in response to this stimuli.

Disclaimer: For the last 20 years, I have been a legal resident that cannot vote in the U.S., and on every political placement test I've taken, be they from the right or the left, I have landed smack dab in the middle.(end disclaimer)

That no one ever mentions the idea of "Liberal Science" I find somewhat amusing (and quite frankly, a little biased). Do we all think that products like RU-486 sprung from the ground unaided? The findings of science have ALWAYS been slanted to advance someone's politics, be they environmentalists, cultural conservatives, radical feminists or bomb-throwing moderates such as myself.

Welcome to America (1, Offtopic)

psyconaut (228947) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975630)

Please drive carefully. (And don't walk on the grass).

This shouldn't be a slashdot story (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975637)


How is this "news for nerds"???

Re:This shouldn't be a slashdot story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975736)

This isn't a "news for nerds" article, it's "stuff that matters" article ;)

--
AC

Why should we be surprised? (3, Insightful)

enkidu (13673) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975642)

This is the same administration which when initially asked the question concerning global warming, wanted "more research" to verify that the phenomenon was real. Now that it has been proven to be real, they want "more research" to clarify the extent of the phenomenon. Essentially, after insisting that smoking wasn't harmful to your health, upon being shown that smoking is harmful to one's health, they now want more research to figure out "the degree of damage" caused by smoking.

This administration is one of the most idealogically fixated administrations in recent history. Ideology always trumps reality in the decision making of this administration. Consider their positions on Iraq vs. North Korea. Consider their positions regarding our signed commitments and treaties vs. our Oil interests (Kyoto treaty). Or "Free Trade" vs. the interests of our Steel and Lumber producers. Or contraception vs. AIDS.

From what I can tell, the basic ideology of this administration seems to be: The interests of the United States of America lie with the interests of it's big companies, it's religious right, and it's rich and powerful.

Of course, now I can expect friendly clicks on my telephone and strange delays to the delivery of my email.

EnkiduEOT ( bomb uranium plutonium smallpox anthrax sarin mustard )

Way to catch 'em, guys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975643)

First off, we have an issue where two highly politicized groups are pushing two different conclusions from different data, neither of which is able to establish anything other than correlation. The correct conclusion has now been described as inconclusive. Will the tyranny never end?

And the second cause for uproar for those of you who haven't read the article:
"The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected. For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for S.T.D.'s, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of S.T.D. transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any S.T.D."
Shall we stand for such an oppressive and insufferable lie?

Honestly. Is it just possible that maybe its not a good idea to go to very liberal-biased news source for information about conservative bias?

If... (4, Interesting)

cornjchob (514035) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975652)

If there were a connection between abortion and breast cancer, wouldn't there be a connection between miscarriages and breast cancer? Same hormonal changes would occur, I'd think. Only differences would be how the abortion was induced (drugs or surgical). Anyone have any ideas?

Re:If... (3, Insightful)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975745)

I dunno, I wouldn't summarily lump intentinionally induced, accidental, or surgically extracted fetuses as the same.

A miscarriage is sorta like a pregnant mother rejecting her fetus, which is likely different than intentionally inducing a miscarriage, in which case different hormonal changes would occur. Likewise, a surgical extraction might not have the same chemical footprint as a miscarriage, induced or accidental.

A more concrete example: Losing fat via liposuction, vs losing fat through diet, and losing fat through exercise are three totally different things: One changes your morphology, one changes your metaBolism, and one changes your physical structure and energy level.

Michael...your a fucking troll.... (-1, Troll)

TheCaptain (17554) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975659)

I love the title. "U.S. Pushing Conservative Science"

Consider adding a questionmark to the title you fucktool. It's a rather debatable topic and you are stating it as if it's an established fact.

Well...of course it is "conservative" to Michael. He's to the left of damn near everyone but Barbra Streisand.

Sorry to be harsh...not trying to troll, but it's an inflammatory assertion to have made in such a way.

here is why this is happening (2, Insightful)

Stanley Feinbaum (622232) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975662)

The American population is grossly uneducated. If you look at our Japanese or European betters, we can see what a REAL public education system is. A place where people actually LEARN real things.

Unfortunately, christian wackoes combines with bad journalism has spread many false ideas and impeeded science. Maybe if Americans were more educated more votes would go to people who actually are GOOD for the country (eg.. Not BUSH)

Things appear to be in a sad state these days...

Re:here is why this is happening (2)

cornjchob (514035) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975675)

Maybe if Americans were more educated more votes would go to people who actually are GOOD for the country (eg.. Not BUSH)

Afterall, Gore was soooo much better. Lieberman would've loved this topic.

And let's not forget Nadar and all of his cute little shananigans!

McCain was the only canidate worth a damn, and he got stopped in a way the public couldn't have really prevented. So obviously, it was the voters fault.

Re:here is why this is happening (0)

Stanley Feinbaum (622232) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975683)

Next election, if America gives a damn about keeping relations with the rest of the world people will vote for Lieberman. Bush is a terrible, terrible plague on the country and is going to set back US relations with the rest of the world for years. Even Canada is turning their backs on us and doing such things as decriminalizing maryjuana!

Personally I think the only thing that might keep people from voting for Lieberman will be a fear of having a non WASP president, which kind of goes with the whole uneducated thing I talked about in the previous post.

Re:here is why this is happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975701)

I wouldn't vote against Lieberman for being a "non WASP," but it'd be worth considering that electing a Jew would be a propaganda victory for Muslim extremists that say the U.S. unfairly supports Israel.

~~~

Re:here is why this is happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975742)

Lieberman is far too religeiously conservative. Just because it's Jewish conservatism doesn't make it any better than Christian conservativism.

Don't take medical advice from Lawyers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975666)

Politicians are prodominately lawyers. I do not take medical advice from lawyers wheather they are Liberal or Conservative.

I do not feel that the government's job should be to encourage us to sin by using various random fedrally funded politically motivated scientific studies to justify various behavior.

I figure that this is an overcorrection by the Bush administration.. The government should not be telling us anything about this stuff, becuase bueracracies are not good at being impartial.

Just business as usual... (1)

oosid (627873) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975667)

What? Are under the impression that government is any different than any other big business trying to stay on top. It's a bunch of guys, with a bunch of power peddling a product to the unwashed masses. The motivation is only slightly different. In corporate business the bottom line is the mighty dollar. In political business the bottom is control...followed closely by the mighty dollar. Of course this government, and all governments before and after, have/will skew science to fit whatever junk they happen to be pushing. No suprises here.

i don't understand (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975682)

..."LEAD TO" a mistrust of government? wouldn't that suggest that we currently DO trust it?

Some of you will flame me for this but... (1)

aerojad (594561) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975689)

It must be said. What this all boils down to in my head can be summed up easily in the quote...

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'."

Yeah, you know where it's from.

Democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975691)

With governments doing this, and a people that (according to which poll you read) don't want to go to war, why must your government insist upon herding the people towards its ideals, and in the end ignoring them if they think they can get away with it at the polling station?

Representative democracy's kinda to blame, just breeds a new 'elite', except this time they've got a mandate to do as they please. Heh, not much that can be done about it in the meantime though, sit back and wait for it to destroy itself i guess.

This absolutely amazes me. (0, Troll)

SensitiveMale (155605) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975702)

Studies that link ANY bad consequence to a 'non-conservative' viewed action is immediately looked upon as 'Bush pushing his values and the conservatives are now setting the country back 100 years'

Meanwhile.....

Not a SINGLE study has proven that global warming is in fact happening yet people act as if it is the truth.

Not a SINGLE study has proven that silicon implants cause breast cancer. But that didn't stop the legal system from backrupting Dow.

Not a SINGLE study proved that alar causes cancer but that didn't stop the hysteria that makes it VERY difficult to now use pesticides on food.

The people screaming about such 'conservative' conclusions are the same people who scream 'off with his head' at Judge Thomas for telling a dirty joke but somehow are able to ignore the wake of blowjobs, rapes, and adultery that Clinton left.

These same people who interpret the first admendment so broadly when someone wants to film some guy getting a whip shoved up his ass but interpret the second admendment so narrowly that I can't carry a concealed weapon in Baltimore where the crime is among the nations highest per capita.

So basically anything liberals agree with is correct no matter how the data is twisted but if a conclusion is reached that they don't like, well then the scientists are now misleading people and setting the country back 100 years.

Typical liberal whining.

Oh and as for the oil usage, you can thank your boy Clinton for running up our dependency on foreign oil from 42% in 1992 to 57% in 2000.

Re:This absolutely amazes me. (1)

b17bmbr (608864) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975722)

don't forget, clinton's AG, generalisima reno, was guilty of some of the worst civil rights abuses ever. ruby ridge, waco, elian, and others. it never ceases to amaze me. the left will happily let the feds rape, pillage, and plunder anyone on the right, but the minute a "conservative" just wants the law enforced, like immigration out here in california, we are called nazis.

why is it the case? (0)

b17bmbr (608864) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975703)

why is it the case that /.'ers, who are the most technological, want to ignore how technology has shown us miracles. i have two children. the ultrasounds at less than 1 month of my wife's pregnancy showed a clear heartbeat. and we could hear the heartbeat as well. so hide your heads in the sand, ignore modern technology, but face it, abortion is murder. period. it kills a beating heart. now who is turning the clock back? those of us who want technology to protect and defend life? and btw, i'm jewish. so pull any fundamentalism crap on me. maybe there is a link? hell, i don't know. but you aren't gonna get an answer until somebody studies it. and is it any worse to than much of the pseudo scientific crap funded under the clinton administration. and, not funding due to politics not health any worse?

1 month old fetus is not a human being (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975746)

Mushy sentiments aside, you do know that heart is a pretty autonomous bundle of muscle that gets its rhythm from the autonomous nervous system? No thought required. Just like the movement of an amoeba. In fact I have held a beating heart in my hand when its owner was quite dead.

Yeah, you can hear the heart beat of the fetus and see something that resembles fingers and toes. The fact that it does not have a real brain, however, makes it hard to classify it as a human being.

Obligatory Repost of Article (1)

aerojad (594561) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975712)

U.S. Revises Sex Information, and a Fight Goes On
By ADAM CLYMER


WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 -- The National Cancer Institute, which used to say on its Web site that the best studies showed "no association between abortion and breast cancer," now says the evidence is inconclusive.

A Web page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used to say studies showed that education about condom use did not lead to earlier or increased sexual activity. That statement, which contradicts the view of "abstinence only" advocates, is omitted from a revised version of the page.

Critics say those changes, far below the political radar screen, illustrate how the Bush administration can satisfy conservative constituents with relatively little exposure to the kind of attack that a legislative proposal or a White House statement would invite.

Bill Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, scoffed at the idea that there was anything political about the changes, saying that they reflected only scientific judgments and that department headquarters had had nothing to do with them. "We simply looked at them, and they put them up," he said of the agencies involved.

The new statements were posted in the last month, after news reports that the government had removed their predecessors from the Web. Those reports quoted administration officials as saying the earlier material had been removed so that it could be rewritten with newer scientific information. The latest statements are the revisions.

Those statements have drawn some criticism, as did the removal, though like the issue itself it has gone largely unnoticed. Fourteen House Democrats, including Henry A. Waxman of California, senior minority member of the House Government Reform Committee, have written to Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of health and human services, charging that the new versions "distort and suppress scientific information for ideological purposes."

Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the new statement on abortion and breast cancer "simply doesn't track the best available science."

"Scientific and medical misinformation jeopardizes peoples' lives," Ms. Feldt said, adding that any suggestion of a connection between abortion and cancer was "bogus."

The earlier statement, which the National Cancer Institute removed from the Web in June after anti-abortion congressmen objected to it, noted that many studies had reached varying conclusions about a relation between abortion and breast cancer, but said "recent large studies" showed no connection. In particular, it approvingly cited a study of 1.5 million Danish women that was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1997. That study, the cancer institute said, found that "induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer."

The Danish research, praised by the American Cancer Society as "the largest, and probably the most reliable, study of this topic," is not mentioned in the government's recent posting, which says the cancer institute will hold a conference next year to plan further research.

Dorie Hightower, a press officer at the cancer institute, attributed the revision to the institute's periodic review of fact sheets "for accuracy and scientific relevance." Asked whether the institute now thought that the Danish study failed on either count, Ms. Hightower said no. But she said there was no scientist available to explain the change.

As for the disease control centers' fact sheet on condoms, the old version focused on the advantages of using them, while the new version puts more emphasis on the risk that such use may not prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and on the advantages of abstinence.

Posted on Dec. 2, the new version begins, in boldface: "The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected. For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for S.T.D.'s, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of S.T.D. transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any S.T.D."

A different Web page maintained by the centers, referring to studies of uninfected people at risk of H.I.V. because of sexual relationships with infected people, does say on the other hand, "The studies found that even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100 percent of those people who used latex condoms correctly and consistently did not become infected."

But the recently revised page warns that evidence on condom use and other sexually transmitted diseases is inconclusive, though it says the uncertainty demonstrates that "more research is needed -- not that latex condoms do not work."

The new version also omits a passage on sex education and condom use that appeared in the earlier document. "Studies of specific sex education programs," the earlier version said, "have shown that H.I.V. education and sex education that included condom information either had no effect upon the initiation of intercourse or resulted in delayed onset of intercourse."

In an interview, Dr. David Fleming, the disease control centers' deputy director for science, defended the new version. "We try as hard as possible," Dr. Fleming said, "to state objectively what is known about condom efficacy without nuancing language beyond what is supported by the science."

He said that the document reflected consensus of the centers, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health, and that none of its conclusions had been influenced by those agencies' parent, the Department of Health and Human Services.

The letter to Secretary Thompson from House Democrats said that by alteration and deletion, the disease control agency "is now censoring the scientific information about condoms it makes available to the public" in order to suit abstinence-only advocates. And it said the breast cancer document amounted to nothing more than "the political creation of scientific uncertainty."

"Information that used to be based on science," the lawmakers said, "is being systematically removed from the public when it conflicts with the administration's political agenda."

Nazi Era Science reborn? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975719)

Ok, there are starting to be too many parallel events in the news. Wars on multiple fronts (axis of 'Evil') Shadowy enemies who just happen to be of Middle Eastern decent (Israel is in the middle east). Gosh who'd a thought it? On a history note, not all the Jews Hitler was complaining about where Bankers and Rich Businessmen. So too with Al Quida, which isn't a sizeable group in the Islamic world. Maybe 30-50,000 in a population of over a Billion. Even if you lumped in Hamas and the latest faction of the week and all their supporters who don't give a rats ass about America, let alone be willing to attack directly. You still don't have a big percentage of the populace

Didn't the American Delegate to the International Population Conference move to outlaw Thong underwear?

What a stupid title (4, Insightful)

mc6809e (214243) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975720)

How can there be any such thing as liberal or conservative science? If the new conclusions are consistent with scientific principles, then they are scientific. The end.

Oh, you don't like them? BFD. Science doesn't care what you think or what you wish to be true. And guess what -- sometimes science just happens to support the positions of the political right. Anyone who is intellectually honest will just have to accept that.

And I'm not just some right-wing Bible thumper. I happen to be an atheist and a strong advocate of science. But even I can see how the political left in this country has politicized science and it fucking pisses me off. Science isn't about trying to verify your political prejudices and the political left doesn't have a monopoly on science.

This just in: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975723)

Masturbation causes blindness.
It's no wonder most /.ers can't speel.

This country pisses me off (2)

zephc (225327) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975726)

more and more, every day.

I've been looking into moving to Switzerland... non-EU country, nice LOW probability of being attacked, much friendlier foreign policy. Sure, I'll have to learn German, French or Italian. It sure is better than being shafted by Bush and his cronies.

When I saw this article... (0, Troll)

SensitiveMale (155605) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975731)

I first thought I was on that fucking liberal kuro5hin.org website.

Speaking of the govt.. (3, Insightful)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975737)

Two recent political leaders allegedly had
this nefarious habit:

-: Both came to power after dubious elections,
by non-electorial and irregular methods.
-: Both nations immediately experienced attacks
on famous public buildings.
-: Both blamed an ethnic minority before
forensics had any evidence.
-: Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused
minority.
-: Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."
-: Both put the citizenry under surveillance.
-: Both maintained secret and clandestine
governments.
-: Both launched wars against most of the world.

One had a funny mustache.

Can you name the other one?

Masturbation (5, Funny)

Tracy Reed (3563) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975743)

Q: Does masturbation cause you to go blind?

A: Not as far as I can see.

The politicization of science (1)

jcam2 (248062) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975749)

Stories like this show exactly how government funding of science leads to government control and bias. Sometimes that bias is to the left and sometimes to the right, but it is almost always leads to research justifying expanded government power (ie - global warming, banning abortions, umpteen environmental scares, the dangers of drugs, etc..)

It is naive to think that science funded by anyone can be free of bias. The best hope if for funding to from as many independant sources as possible, such as companies, universities and charitable foundations.

More Infections (4, Insightful)

BigTom (38321) | more than 11 years ago | (#4975754)

The sad thing is that, as the condom information permeates through the population, the message will end up as "condoms aren't any use" and a load of teens won't bother with them (amazingly they'll still have sex) and infection and pregnancy rates will go up. Tom

Abortion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4975755)

Abortion leads to fear... fear leads to hate...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?