I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV. It doesn't take Dr. Science ("I have a masters!") to determine that the Bush administration has skewed actual science - from AIDS/HIV Education to WTC air particulants - for their own benefit.
Andrew provided me a link to the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science. It is brought to you today by the
Seriously, take a look at the table. The UoCS' findings are not hooey. For example, H (HIV education): Abstinence might make the heart grow fonder, but it makes the hard-on grow less fond. Though W would like for sex only to happen with married couples wanting to concieve children - that is never going to happen. So why not face the reality and help deal with the problem that actually produces results? They are fighting the wrong fight. (this also goes for the St - Sexually Transmitted Disease block).
Ns: Neurostimulation is great for some things - and shows great potential for physical and behavioral disorders. However, there is nothing concrete to show that VNS (or even DBS) are viable (let alone long term) treatments for depression. I know this because I worked in this area. FDA approval (through device manufacturers lobbying) does not prove medical necessity.
These are just a few examples, but I'm sure you can find 'experts' who will discount each and every one of these. But if you look close enough - I would wager they have conflict of interest written all over them, whether it be with lobbying, device manufactures, faith-based organizations, etc.
How about just listening to some good and healthy debate without the fear of government manipulation?
The title of the post is mine. Andrew would never be so crass as to say something like that. His wife however.......