Roger A. Pielke Jr. has written a factually accurate but basically misleading column ["Accepting Politics in Science," op-ed, Jan. 11].
No one argues that science can be divorced from politics. The political process will always be essential for allocating funds and setting research priorities. But this is different from the manipulation of scientific research to support a political agenda.
A broad cross section of leading scientific organizations and periodicals have expressed alarm that the Bush administration has, in the words of Science magazine, unleashed an "epidemic of politics" on science. An example of the harm from bad science was displayed recently on network television when Sen. Bill Frist, a medical doctor, stood by the administration-funded position that AIDS can be spread through tears and sweat. Pielke's proposal that we openly acknowledge the political composition of scientific panels the way we handled the Sept. 11 commission would make more sense if we could democratically vote for scientific facts. In a democracy, everyone is entitled to his own opinions but not to his own facts.
-- David Apatoff
McLean
•
I and many other Americans detest the increasing politicization of judicial appointments. It seems ludicrous to suggest this as an excuse for politicizing science advisory appointments.
The National Research Council's main recommendations were for speeding and easing the appointment process, particularly for the assistant to the president for science and technology. Government officials go for months with no scientific input at all. Seeking a diverse group of appointees came next on the National Research Council's list, followed by prohibiting litmus tests.
True, scientists have political opinions and the advice from government scientists is often politically charged. But the threat of a politically motivated inquisition should not be added to the other barriers to public service.
-- Gary M. Heiligman
Columbia
