![]() |
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
![]() |
#1 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: .
Posts: 1,281
|
![]()
There is an editorial in the Jan 31 issue of Science on the Bush administrations pollicy of calling members of science advisory commities and asking them political questions and firing them if they don't mesh the current administration.
excerpt: A nominee for the National Institutes of Health Muscular Dystrophy Research Coordinating Committee is vetted by a staffer from the Office of White House Liaison, Health and Human Services. After being asked about her views on various Bush administration policies, none of them related to the work of the committee, she is asked whether she supports the president's embryonic stem cell policy. A distinguished professor of psychiatry and psychology receives a call from the White House about his nomination to serve on the National Council on Drug Abuse. His interviewer declares that he must vet him to "determine whether he held any views that might be embarrassing to the president." A series of questions follows, into which the interviewer interpolates a running score, viz.: "You're two for three; the president opposes needle exchange on moral grounds regardless of the outcome." He then asks whether the candidate had voted for Bush, and on being informed that he had not, asked: "Why didn't you support the president?" |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|