Some scholars remain skeptical about whether science has become more political. "When people are seeking political advantage, there isn't much that is sacred," observes economist Lester Lave of Carnegie Mellon University. "Since scientists enjoy a positive reputation with the public, members of Congress and other decision makers, there is some attempt to line up Nobel Prize winners, professional society presidents or large numbers of university people to support or oppose a position. There is nothing new here." And even Lane notes a considerable amount of "polemic" mixed with the concrete cases of interference outlined in Waxman's August report.

Bush administration officials have countered that Waxman himself is using scientists' concerns for his own political gain. "He's just playing politics by continuing to attack the president's policies. He's not offering constructive ways to enhance science policy," says Mary Ellen Grant, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee.

Waxman is undeterred.

Scientific American is not a science journal anymore. It ceased to be so sometime around 1983. Now it's leftist, populist blather whose primary subscribers seek leftist rants couched in scientific rhetoric to make them feel better about their worldview and whose editor and staffers are hardcore leftists who whore for the political left. They've been pushing man-made global warming for decades to assist the lefts efforts to castrate corporations with taxes and special environmental regulations. That they ignored the sun's influence (and all those who pointed this out to them) is just one example of their political agenda. That they cooperate with the hardcore left to attack Bush is no surprise and is not worthy of serious discussion. Even Popular Mechanic's articles are more useful.

Sometimes <A HREF="http://popularmechanics.com/science/worst_case_scenario/2003/6/alien_abduction/"very useful.

;-)