Energy Secretary Quietly Dismantles Independent Science Advisory Board
Energy Secretary Quietly Dismantles Independent Science Advisory Board
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has quietly disbanded the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), the department’s “principal independent advisory board on scientific and technical matters,” reports Nature magazine.
The board, established by President Carter in 1978, is “a mix of distinguished scientists, such as Nobel laureate Burton Richter, and business executives, such as former ExxonMobil chairman Lee Raymond.”
The Energy Department said the board is no longer necessary because Bodman has his own “scientific” background. But Bodman isn’t the first Energy secretary with scientific training. James D. Watkins, President George H.W. Bush’s Energy Secretary who received his masters degree in mechanical engineering and completed a reactor engineering course at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, kept the panel in place during his tenure.
Nature has another theory on why Bodman may have dismantled the board — disagreement with the federal government’s priorities:
The panel’s most recent report, in July 2005, recommended drastic restructuring of the nation’s nuclear-weapons labs. The study riled some in Congress, but [department spokesman Craig Stevens] denies that this had any influence on the decision to dissolve the board.
Even with Bodman’s chemical engineering background, some independent voices are needed in this administration.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
We need more citizens like Harry Turner.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:07 pmThat’s OK. We don’t need science. We have Faith!
That’s Intelligent Design for you. Yep. Bush is intelligently designed. NOT!!!
April 10th, 2006 at 1:11 pmAnother of Bush’s Corn Kernal Squad-circling the bowl and brining the nation down the pipes with him.
-GSD
The clock is running out on this nation. Pretty soon there won’t be much left to save.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:15 pmIf the dumbasses can’t understand it, get rid of it. That is reason ONE why we shouldn’t elect idiots with low IQs.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:18 pmIf your energy policy is based solely on politics and funneling profits to your contributors and cronies, who needs science? Better to muzzle any potential critics.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:18 pmI think George and his crew are trying to dismantle the entire federal government before they leave office. He really doesn’t want anyone to succeed him as President. So, he can either outlaw the 2008 election or do away with government altogether. And since he has proclaimed absolute power for himself, he can do whichever he chooses.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:23 pmJust outsource our national energy policy to Exxon-Mobil. That’s the Bush-Republican way.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:25 pmScience, and the accompanying reason and logic, would quietly and quickly dismantle nearly every Admin. decision rationale they’ve ever made. From the EPA, FDA, USDA….good science proves their moves wrong in every case. So they respond by dumping the science. What predictable jackasses….
April 10th, 2006 at 1:25 pmIf George Bush said he was going to enact Grover Norquist’s view of America, he wouldn’t have gotten 10 votes.
All they have are lies.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:42 pmBTW, Did you thank Harry yet?
April 10th, 2006 at 1:49 pmhttp://www.thankyouharrytaylor.org/wordpress/
Good!
Science is so overated… think about it – what has science ever done for us… it promises the universe, but delivers nothing… no wait… wait a minute… I think that’s God I’m thinking about… nevermind.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:50 pmAnother thinks-he-knows-it-all Republican :-(
Although I can think of a board that probably should be dismantled, “Defense Policy Board”. What is Richard Perle, the never saw a war that wasn’t profitable guy, up to these days?
April 10th, 2006 at 1:54 pmWell, maybe you guys need to give old Sam a break. Did you ever think that maybe he wasn’t giving him the “scientific” answers George wanted to hear?
I mean, Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig recently just got rid of the sceientic study and salmon counting program on the Columbia River because they weren’t the administration the “correct” answers they wanted on dam removal vs. salmon extinction. Sadly Sam’s board dismissal, like Craig’s gutting of the Pacific salmon recovery efforts won’t even get a mention on the evening news.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:55 pmI took chemistry in college. Do I also have a scientific background?
April 10th, 2006 at 1:56 pmI took chemistry in college. Do I also have a scientific background?
Comment by George P. — April 10, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
Probably too much of a backgroung for old Georgie Boy.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:58 pmI have a hubble picture screensaver…do I have a scientific background?
April 10th, 2006 at 1:59 pmThis is the science they are really afraid of. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.html
April 10th, 2006 at 2:00 pmIgnorance and denial are the new republican badges of honor. These people are living in the 1st century, and the way they’re leading, that may be exactly where they’re taking us.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:01 pmI took chemistry in college. Do I also have a scientific background? Comment by George P.
Only if you can you back that up with some good, solid intelligent design stuff.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:03 pmbeep52 you forgot shamlessness.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:04 pm#14 – I looked at a chemistry set once. Do I also have a scientific background?
April 10th, 2006 at 2:06 pmThe thought process of this administration is anti-science. They start with an idea in theirs heads of how they think things should be. When they are faced with a different answer that reflects reality they get rid of the true answer and use the origional mental conception. In other words they start with the conclusion and end there no matter what observations they see from the testing and studying tells them.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:06 pmMan what a slip, sorry I meant SHAMELESSNESS. Sorry.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:07 pm#14 – I looked at a chemistry set once. Do I also have a scientific background? Comment by Zookeeper
Even better than #14, Zooman. The less chemistry, the better, really. Still, you gotta have that intelligent design background. Especially the fire and brimstone stuff.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:15 pmDid anyone think we could regress this much in just 5 years? I was about the most pessimistic of all my friends when I predicted how the country might go downhill when Bush was “elected”. And even my predictions turned out too rosy. Just think what another three years could bring.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:15 pm[...] Â more @ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/10/bodman-science-board/ [...]
April 10th, 2006 at 2:16 pmLet’s hope we live to see the next 3 years.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:17 pmMost scientists, including those in higher education, are sponsered by corporations. So I don’t think this is going to make much difference. It is much like the medical industry which now runs most of the medical universities. Formerly independent professional journals are now just extensions of their corporate sponser’s interests. The real issue was decided by corporatists a decade or so ago.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:19 pmfly-man – How bout Shamfulness… full of sham and ness?
April 10th, 2006 at 2:21 pm#24 – I don’t know, Joe, I was starting to feel a little “chemistry” with ole Sam Bodman. Mmmm, jowls and a shiny bald head.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:23 pmScience deals with a search for the truth. What is real, and what isn’t. The truth doesn’t reflect well on the GOP.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:27 pmBUSH = EVIL
SILENCE = DEATH
Remember it
April 10th, 2006 at 2:32 pmWe don’t need none of that thur, fancy smancy science stuff!
April 10th, 2006 at 3:16 pma minor point, but nearly all engineers who were being honest would tell you that they are not scientists; that science and engineering are very different activities. The one derives from the other, and the training and activites therefore are fundamentally related, but substantially different.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:35 pm#34 Excellent point, spyder and great handle too.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:10 pmDo what they want; i.e. take the science out of the evaluation of policy and the poilicy becomes the one they desire—ignorance, which is the basis of administration policy There are laws in science and to this lawless adminitstation, science is an unwelcome restraint. It makes perfect sence to me.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:12 pmUnless every message issued by any government agency supports the President’s agenda, it will be either ignored or elliminated. Just another case of filling seats with cronies.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:15 pmWho needs science when you have the Bible? It’s all explained there: The Universe was made in six days, the Moon emits light, bats are birds, and woman was made out of the man’s rib.
Why would you need to know more?
April 10th, 2006 at 4:47 pmNotice that usual reichwing trolls have yet to come up with a defense of this and Bush’s EPA apointee. Could it be that the supposed children of Mighty Hypocrite, I-WRONG-I, etc. actually need to breath clean air and drink unpolluted water occasionally? Amazing!
April 10th, 2006 at 5:50 pmWhy would you need to know more?
Comment by Gregor Samsa — April 10, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
Even in sarcasm, that hurt coming from you… :)
April 10th, 2006 at 5:59 pmIts nothing new that this admin is anti-science, the thread is interesting info, but really its nothing new. Why do you think FoxNews.com has a “junk science” section? These hacks have been out to discredit science since day one.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:57 pmScience is to Republican what Water is to the Wicked Witch. It melts them faster than global warming in the arctic ice.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:00 pmAt the state level here in AZ, they are interested in “evidence-based research” to justify spending on certain programs, but as I typed this, it occurred to me that the state has someone to answer to, the Feds, but the people who have no-one to answer to, like the Bush admin, don’t have to produce any justification for anything.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:01 pmI don’t think its the science part of the independent science advisory board that bothers the administration. Its the “independent” part. Why an independent board might tell the administration that it is totally wrong and stupid and short sighted.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:04 pmBodman is so smart he doesn’t have to consult any experts — just ask him.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:24 pmWe all know people like that; insufferable jerks. The worst about this jerk is that he is the Energy Secretary and what he does affects all of us.
(sarcasm) Why should the US do science at all? Just out-source and sell the results to the US. Oh yes, one more thing. Be sure to position a Republican to oversee the US end of things so that profits can be skimmed off the top. (/sarcasm)
Goodbye Age of Enlightenment, hello feudalism!
April 10th, 2006 at 7:42 pmA line to throw at Bodman. People who think they know everything don’t. Or people who think they are infalliable are confusing themselves with god.
The arrogance of this administration is horrible. Aren’t these all “Christians” and isn’t humility a Christian virtue?
April 10th, 2006 at 7:52 pmYup, we dismantled the Science Advisory Board because we don’t believe in science. The earth is flat, there ain’t no global warming (hell, there ain’t even a globe) and besides the second coming is right around the corner, so there’s no reason to preserve anything anyway. The end is near. The end is near.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:08 pmthe times of max headroom are here people,wake up
April 10th, 2006 at 11:25 pmDid anyone think we could regress this much in just 5 years? I was about the most pessimistic of all my friends when I predicted how the country might go downhill when Bush was “electedâ€. And even my predictions turned out too rosy. Just think what another three years could bring.
Comment by Geoff — April 10, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
I’m one of the idiots who voted for him in 2000. The guy I was dating at that time was a vet from teh first Iraq war, and had changed political parties. We were discussing the election and he told me that he thought Bush was extremely dangerous. I think I told him, naive idealist that I used to be, that there was nothing to worry about because we had a system of checks and balances that would prevent him from being much more than a mouth piece for the advisors he would pick. I had no idea he’d pick such war-mongering people to surround himself with.
I’ve grown up since then, and voted for Kerry in 2004. But it was a terrible lesson to learn the hard way. I think it’s why I’m so much more vigilant about politics now – and skeptical.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:43 amThis is why they don’t want real science in this country (to fight little green space men now):
NASA to crash space probe into moon
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) — NASA plans to crash a space probe into the moon in 2009 — a collision so violent it will be visible on Earth through a telescope, the space agency said Monday.
The moon crash, part of a larger mission that includes a lunar orbiter, is a quest for ice. Water is the key ingredient for supporting future human outposts on the moon, a goal of the Bush administration.
NASA scientists say the collision should excavate a hole about a third the size of a football field and hurl a plume of debris into space.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/04/10/moon.mission.ap/index.html
April 11th, 2006 at 7:55 amI was in New Orleans a few years ago for “Southern Decadence”, walking around the city, taking one of Ann Rice’s tours and the tour guide said (looking up at the boats floating past on the Mississippi), (paraphrasing) “One of these days we’ll have a big hurricane and the city will flood.”
Fast forward to 2005 and that moron, Darth Shrubbius, saying, (paraphrasing) “No one expected a breach in the levees.”
I think… It isn’t that the White House is so much against science as they are completely clueless. I would bet that the Shrub doesn’t even KNOW that this and that science budget was cut, or that NASA believes in human caused global warming. Either his people are afraid to tell him things, or they think he’s too stupid to understand anyway, so they don’t bother.
So, Bush may have, “Power”, but I believe he is controlled by the sycophants, boot lickers and lobbyists that put this lousy excuse for a President into office.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:08 pmPS – He’s NOT a scientist. His backgound is, “Previously, Secretary Bodman served as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury beginning in February 2004. He also served the Bush Administration as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce beginning in 2001. A financier and executive by trade, with three decades of experience in the private sector, Secretary Bodman was well suited manage the day-to-day operations of both of these cabinet agencies”, A financier and executive. That means he doesn’t keep up with, could NOT keep up with, what’s happening in science.
Like Captain Kirk would say, “He’s a desk bound paper pusher! Up there… Ruining my ship!”
April 11th, 2006 at 4:17 pmHave been reading about the quantity and quality of fish in our fresh water lakes and streams. Many of our fish have over 20% the EPA limit on Mercury. Mercury is harmful to everyone, but mostly fetus. Why wouldn’t the Bush religious base, who are anti-choice, be for a healthy environment and environmental sustainability. Most of the mercury comes from coal fired energy plants.
I don’t want to say all Christians are anti-environment, because that is far from the truth, it just seems Bush’s base and the radical Christions seem to have a voice, drowning out pro-environment Christians. I don’t know how anyone can be anti-environment, because a clean environment is life. Not only is it God’s free Cathedral, but it is also our source of food, water, air, and our soul’s well-being. You have a lot if you have your health, but you won’t have your health if you don’t have a clean environment.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:48 amWhat people outside of science fail to understand is that science is a very conservative profession. Research is done where you, as the scientist, have an idea of what should happen, and you do experiments to confirm your ideas. If you come up with something that flies in the face of established research, then it is difficult to get published.
This can be good and bad. Good in that poor methodology and analysis which lead to questionable results are forced into peer review and are often not published. Bad in that radical shifts in thinking are slow and difficult going. Science can adapt, but it is a slow adaptation.
this all being said. An independent board of scientists does not make a board that is correct in all cases. But, I do agree that power should be more dispersed than it is now. But, don’t kid yourself into thinking that Republican politicians are much different than Democratic politicians in their methods of maintaining power.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:05 pm