| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | It occurs when interested parties assert as true, claims that are unsubstantiated or even known to be false, or when scientific facts or principles are suppressed because they contradict ideology. | | It occurs when interested parties assert as true, claims that are unsubstantiated or even known to be false, or when scientific facts or principles are suppressed because they contradict ideology. |
| | | | |
| − | * ... the political process seems to have captured and often corrupted the integrity of the scientific research that is used to formulate policy, and inform policy decisions.<ref> [[Michael Crichton]], [http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-sciencepolicy.html Science Policy in the 21st Century]</ref> | + | * ... the political process seems to have captured and often corrupted the integrity of the scientific research that is used to formulate policy, and inform policy decisions.<ref>[[Michael Crichton]], [http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-sciencepolicy.html Science Policy in the 21st Century]</ref> |
| | * It is a true perversion of the [[scientific process]] to find that [[skepticism]] is no longer welcome or accepted in [[scientific debate]]. [http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/chapter-2-is-it.html] | | * It is a true perversion of the [[scientific process]] to find that [[skepticism]] is no longer welcome or accepted in [[scientific debate]]. [http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/chapter-2-is-it.html] |
| | * Many modern [[AGW]] supporters believe that insinuating possible sources of bias is sufficient to exempt one from having to actually critique their opponents’ methods and findings. [''ibid''] | | * Many modern [[AGW]] supporters believe that insinuating possible sources of bias is sufficient to exempt one from having to actually critique their opponents’ methods and findings. [''ibid''] |
| Line 27: |
Line 27: |
| | The best documented case in American history is the banning of [[DDT]] immediately after a hearing from the 1970s, in which it was shown to be safe when used as directed. In small quantities, DDT can even be eaten by human beings{{fact}} - it's not a poison like arsenic or cyanide but it is accumulated in bodies through the food chain affecting especially birds (see closer article [[DDT]]). The new EPA administrator disregarded the hearing results and unilaterally banned DDT. The ensuing U.S. ban put pressure on foreign governments to stop using DDT for mosquito control and ultimately led to a worldwide rise in the number of malaria cases, which thwarted efforts to control the [[Malaria epidemic|spread of the disease]]. When the UN's [[World Health Organization]] reversed a longstanding ban on [[DDT]] in 2006, it did not admit that the ban was politically motivated, but instead labelled the cause as "increased health and environmental concerns" from the 1980s.<ref>World Health Organization, [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/index.html ''WHO Gives Indoor Use of DDT a Clean Bill of Health for Controlling Malaria'']; September 15th, 2006</ref> | | The best documented case in American history is the banning of [[DDT]] immediately after a hearing from the 1970s, in which it was shown to be safe when used as directed. In small quantities, DDT can even be eaten by human beings{{fact}} - it's not a poison like arsenic or cyanide but it is accumulated in bodies through the food chain affecting especially birds (see closer article [[DDT]]). The new EPA administrator disregarded the hearing results and unilaterally banned DDT. The ensuing U.S. ban put pressure on foreign governments to stop using DDT for mosquito control and ultimately led to a worldwide rise in the number of malaria cases, which thwarted efforts to control the [[Malaria epidemic|spread of the disease]]. When the UN's [[World Health Organization]] reversed a longstanding ban on [[DDT]] in 2006, it did not admit that the ban was politically motivated, but instead labelled the cause as "increased health and environmental concerns" from the 1980s.<ref>World Health Organization, [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/index.html ''WHO Gives Indoor Use of DDT a Clean Bill of Health for Controlling Malaria'']; September 15th, 2006</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | Many other chemicals have been considered dangerous and banned for political reasons, often involving health scares. Also nuclear power and even the internal combustion engine have been targeted by partisans using [[junk science]]. Most recently, [[environmentalist]]s refer to [[global warming]] to get internal combustion engine banned (see [[IPCC Summary for Policymakers]]). <ref>http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers</ref> | + | Many other chemicals have been considered dangerous and banned for political reasons, often involving health scares. Also nuclear power and even the internal combustion engine have been targeted by partisans using [[junk science]]. Most recently, [[environmentalist]]s refer to [[global warming]] to get internal combustion engine banned (see [[IPCC Summary for Policymakers]]).<ref>http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers</ref> |
| | | | |
| | John Daly wrote: | | John Daly wrote: |
| Line 40: |
Line 40: |
| | <references/> | | <references/> |
| | | | |
| − | [[category:political Terms]] | + | [[Category:Political Terms]] |
| | [[Category:Liberal Traits]] | | [[Category:Liberal Traits]] |