Procrastination sometimes pays off. Take this article for instance. You are getting three for the price of one. Three examples of one huge, straightforward problem. That problem is the LACK OF INTEGRITY that is such a comfortable operating zone for so many wannabe authorities.
Initially, I intended to focus on the recently publicized compromise of scientific integrity and protocol in the interagency National Lynx Survey throughout a multi-state area. This multi-million dollar taxpayer funded project has fallen victim to the philosophy of the 'end justifies the means'. Pondering the approach and focus I would take allowed for equally important examples of questionable ethics to percolate to the surface of a growing scientific cesspool affecting public opinion and policies.
Second is from the academic arena, and deals with purported deceptions and misrepresentations of documents as they relate to historical gun ownership in the United States. The book "Arming America" by Michael Bellesiles of Emory University in Atlanta is under serious ethical fire from many quarters. His own university department Chair is requiring he validate his research.
Third deals with chemicals used in food and industry, and the lies that were reported about them. Steven F. Arnold, a former researcher at Tulane University Center for Bioenvironmental Research has been banned from working on federally funded grants for five years, and cited for "scientific misconduct by intentionally falsifying ..research results'. These actions taken by the federal Office of Research Integrity seem far less then appropriate. The damage done continues, and the American public is paying the billion dollar price for both Steven Arnold's lack of ethics, and Congress' rush to 'look good' in their publics' eye by passing another piece of poorly considered legislation.
The similar factor that blends these three particular transgressions into the same pool is that of deception. Each instance is replete with clear intent to deviate from accepted scientific protocol and/or accepted methodology in order to achieve the desired results.
Materials submitted in the lynx study were clearly outside the agreed to methodology and protocol. Employees of three public agencies are attempting to pass off their actions as well intended. They are blowing right past the ethics of credible scientific inquiry which is not a 'make it up as you go' way of doing business. Some of these folks are implicating their supervisors. They have said they told their supervisors what they were doing, and why. I'll get to that! The point of ethics is that they THEMSELVES should have never considered such actions as acceptable or honest. What universities trained these people? What did they teach them about scientific honesty? Their universities should ask them to each make public apologies for knowingly damaging the framework of solid science research, for disgracing the reputation of these institutions of higher learning and for violation of the public's trust.
Some supervisors may have known, and had neither the character nor courage to stop it dead in its tracks. They too should be required to make a public apology to their agency, their co-workers, and to the American public for their treachery. Then they too should be fired. They have violated many 'public trusts'.
Arming America is an interesting item. Author Bellesiles attempts to make the case that gun ownership was not a significant part of the American pioneer culture. Apparently citing non-existent documents, and misrepresenting information well describes his book. Check out this website: www.claytoncramer.com for a more detailed analysis of problems with his information.
The significance of his false premise goes to both the heart of the legal argument about the right to bear arms and to the distortion of history. Liberals have long wanted this Constitutional concept to be interpreted as .the right to bear arms when the government gives you arms to bear. Not the other way around----which is backed up historically----that citizens brought their arms to the conflicts when needed.
Steven Milloy covers the deceit of Steven Arnold at Tulane University. His November 9, 2001 story on FOX News sets forth the disgraceful conduct leading to the passage of 1996 legislation requiring screening of thousands of chemicals used in food and industry. The 1999 findings of the National Academy of Science's National Research Council found Arnold's research to be unverifiable. Still this legislation has not been repealed, and the screening program continues. It alone is costing more then $10 million annually. Damage done, goal achieved!
Science should be a pool of knowledge based on integrity beyond question. Americans do not deserve to have their public policy lives guided by such contamination and intellectual pollution.
~ Wyoming Livestock Roundup - January 3, 2002
Permission granted to reprint in full or part with full credit given to author