Redaktørene i NYTimes om Trump-administrasjonens krig mot vitenskap og forskning.
Lederen begynner med en gjennomgang av de seneste sprø påfunnene fra de gale onklene og fortsetter:
This was not persuasive to anyone who had been paying attention.
From Day 1, the White House and its lackeys in certain federal agencies have been waging what amounts to a war on science, appointing people with few scientific credentials to key positions, defunding programs that could lead to a cleaner and safer environment and a healthier population, and, most ominously, censoring scientific inquiry that could inform the public and government policy.
Even allowing for justifiable budgetary reasons, in nearly every case the principal motive seemed the same: to serve commercial interests whose profitability could be affected by health and safety rules.
The coal mining industry is a conspicuous example. The practice of blowing the tops off mountains to get at underlying coal seams has been attacked for years by public health and environmental interests and by many of the families whose livelihoods depend on coal. But Mr. Trump and his department heads have made a very big deal of saving jobs in a declining industry that is already under severe pressure from market forces, including competition from cheaper natural gas.
An unfavorable health study would inject unwelcome reality into Mr. Trump’s rosy promises of a job boom fueled by “clean, beautiful coal.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/opinion/sunday/trump-epa-pruitt-science.html?
Det er deprimerende lesestoff, men bør leses i sin helhet.
Bl.a. er nå "klimaendringer" og "global oppvarming" blitt fyord, men det er mye annet rart som også er blitt bannlyst. Reguleringer som skal beskytte folk flest fjernes; folk uten forsknings- eller lederbakgrunn utnevnes til å lede kritisk viktige føderale kontor (som den nye NASA-sjefen); viktige funksjoner fjernes fra nøytrale og forskerstyrte avdelinger og legges under næringsvennlige ditto; EPA-sjefen ønsker en "red force" avdeling med klimaskeptiske forskere som ikke tror på sammenhengen mellom CO2 og menneskeskapte klimaendringer; osv ...
Lederen begynner med en gjennomgang av de seneste sprø påfunnene fra de gale onklene og fortsetter:
This was not persuasive to anyone who had been paying attention.
From Day 1, the White House and its lackeys in certain federal agencies have been waging what amounts to a war on science, appointing people with few scientific credentials to key positions, defunding programs that could lead to a cleaner and safer environment and a healthier population, and, most ominously, censoring scientific inquiry that could inform the public and government policy.
Even allowing for justifiable budgetary reasons, in nearly every case the principal motive seemed the same: to serve commercial interests whose profitability could be affected by health and safety rules.
The coal mining industry is a conspicuous example. The practice of blowing the tops off mountains to get at underlying coal seams has been attacked for years by public health and environmental interests and by many of the families whose livelihoods depend on coal. But Mr. Trump and his department heads have made a very big deal of saving jobs in a declining industry that is already under severe pressure from market forces, including competition from cheaper natural gas.
An unfavorable health study would inject unwelcome reality into Mr. Trump’s rosy promises of a job boom fueled by “clean, beautiful coal.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/opinion/sunday/trump-epa-pruitt-science.html?
Det er deprimerende lesestoff, men bør leses i sin helhet.
Bl.a. er nå "klimaendringer" og "global oppvarming" blitt fyord, men det er mye annet rart som også er blitt bannlyst. Reguleringer som skal beskytte folk flest fjernes; folk uten forsknings- eller lederbakgrunn utnevnes til å lede kritisk viktige føderale kontor (som den nye NASA-sjefen); viktige funksjoner fjernes fra nøytrale og forskerstyrte avdelinger og legges under næringsvennlige ditto; EPA-sjefen ønsker en "red force" avdeling med klimaskeptiske forskere som ikke tror på sammenhengen mellom CO2 og menneskeskapte klimaendringer; osv ...
