Changes

==Use of junk science==

==Use of junk science==

The ''Washington Post'' reported in November 2010 the oil spill that damaged the Gulf of Mexico's reefs and wetlands also threatens to stain the [[Obama administration]]'s reputation for relying on [[science]] to guide policy. The [[Department of Interior]]'s concluded that the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it [[false]]ly appear that scientists and experts backed the administration's six-month moratorium on new deep-water drilling. The editing changes by the [[White House]] resulted "in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed." But it hadn't been. Outside scientists were asked only to review new safety measures for offshore drilling.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111007479.html Critics say White House misconstrued spill data,] Dina Cappiello, ''Washington Post'', November 11, 2010.</ref>

The ''Washington Post'' reported in November 2010 the oil spill that damaged the Gulf of Mexico's reefs and wetlands also threatens to stain the [[Obama administration]]'s reputation for relying on [[science]] to guide policy. The [[Department of Interior]]'s concluded that the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it [[false]]ly appear that scientists and experts backed the administration's six-month moratorium on new deep-water drilling. The editing changes by the [[White House]] resulted "in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed." But it hadn't been. Outside scientists were asked only to review new safety measures for offshore drilling.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111007479.html Critics say White House misconstrued spill data,] Dina Cappiello, ''Washington Post'', November 11, 2010.</ref>

In October 2010 the Presidential Commission on the [[Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster]] Oil said that the White House [[Office of Management and Budget]] delayed publication of a scientific report that forecast how much oil could reach the gulf's shores. The report said Browner mischaracterized on national TV a government analysis about where the oil went, saying it showed most of the oil was "gone." It also said Browner and the head of the [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]], Jane Lubchenco, contributed to the public's perception that the report was more exact than it was. Academics, environmentalists and federal investigators have accused the administration since the April 2010 spill of downplaying scientific findings, misrepresenting data and, most recently, misconstruing the opinions of experts it solicited.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080407082.html Scientists question government team's report of shrinking gulf oil spill,] David A. Fahrenthold, ''Washington Post,'' August 5, 2010.</ref>

In October 2010 the Presidential Commission on the [[Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster]] Oil said that the White House [[Office of Management and Budget]] delayed publication of a scientific report that forecast how much oil could reach the gulf's shores. The report said Browner mischaracterized on national TV a government analysis about where the oil went, saying it showed most of the oil was "gone." It also said Browner and the head of the [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]], Jane Lubchenco, contributed to the public's perception that the report was more exact than it was. Academics, environmentalists and federal investigators have accused the administration since the April 2010 spill of downplaying scientific findings, misrepresenting data and, most recently, misconstruing the opinions of experts it solicited.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080407082.html Scientists question government team's report of shrinking gulf oil spill,] David A. Fahrenthold, ''Washington Post,'' August 5, 2010.</ref>

==Ethical questions==

==Ethical questions==