[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18481-18482]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         THE ESSENCE OF SCIENCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a matter that 
should be important to us all, regardless of political persuasion, and 
that is, the matter of scientific integrity, which I believe is under 
profound and dangerous attack under this administration and 
unfortunately under this Congress.
  The great Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman once observed 
that as scientists we have ``a lot of experience with ignorance, doubt 
and uncertainty. We have found it of paramount importance'' he wrote 
``that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave 
room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying 
degrees of certainty, some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none 
absolutely certain.''
  Feynman saw this familiarity with uncertainty, with doubt as an 
important strength, indeed a responsibility that scientists can offer 
to the society as a whole. He went on to say, ``If we suppress all 
discussion, all criticism, proclaiming `This is the answer, my friends; 
man is saved!' we will'' in the process ``doom humanity for a long time 
to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present 
imagination.'' Feynman asserted, ``It has been done so many times 
before.''
  Feynman was right. It has been done so many times before; and I 
believe if he were with us today, he would say it is being done yet 
again. In countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways, this administration 
and the majorities in the House and the Senate are deliberately and 
systematically suppressing discussion and criticism and distorting the 
scientific process. The modalities of these discussions, or 
distortions, are manifold; and collectively, they constitute nothing 
less than a coordinated attack on virtually every stage and every 
aspect of the science/policy interaction.
  Evidence of this attack comes from many sources, including a GAO 
study which I am holding up here, which I requested along with my 
ranking member on the Committee on Science, the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). Interestingly and perhaps tellingly, we 
had asked that a full committee hearing be conducted to study this 
matter; but we were denied that privilege, leaving us to hold a 
somewhat symbolic hearing of our own.
  Nevertheless, based on testimony from that hearing and numerous other 
sources, it is apparent to me and others that the assaults on 
scientific independence and integrity includes all of

[[Page 18482]]

the following: limitations of the questions that are allowed to be 
asked; constraints on the methods that are used to seek answers to 
questions; limits or elimination of funding and resources to pursue 
certain questions that are not politically correct; biased selections 
of people who will be allowed to ask questions or serve on scientific 
panels; active and intentional suppression of findings that are not to 
official liking; unjustified claims and inflation of studies or results 
that are approved of by the administration; punishment or ridicule of 
scientists who disagree with official administration dogma; retribution 
for political involvement on the part of scientists; disregard of 
discomfiting scientific evidence; placement of nongovernmental 
ideologues in charge of international missions to supervise U.S. 
positions, vis-a-vis, scientific discussion; and creation of a climate 
in which scientists and policy-makers have begun actually to self-
censor or self-select and actually leave government service.
  Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to his nephew: ``Question with 
boldness even the existence of a God because, if there be one, He must 
more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.'' 
Clearly, at least in his private letters, Jefferson was not one to 
believe in limiting questions, and indeed, if one visits Monticello and 
sees his love for science, one realizes how important that was to him.
  When one considers that Benjamin Franklin was considered one of the 
greatest scientists of his age and that Madison, Jefferson, and 
Washington and many of the Founders had a profound interest in science, 
we realize the importance of that principle to the founding principles 
of this Nation.
  But we must contrast that attitude of the Framers with an 
administration that removes from a National Cancer Institute Web site 
fact sheets showing there is no empirical evidence linking abortion to 
breast cancer. Contrast that attitude of scientific inquiry with 
suppressing analyses of clean air legislation that will save lives and 
cut pollution at negligible cost. Contrast the Framers' attitude with 
initiatives in Congress to cut funding for research relating to 
sexually transmitted disease prevention. Contrast that attitude with 
limits to stem cell research. Contrast that attitude of the Framers 
with the selective appointment or withdrawal of experts on scientific 
advisory panels. Contrast that attitude with the willful stacking of 
advisory committees and removal of any voices deemed unfriendly to a 
predetermined outcome.
  Within the scientific community, the effect of the administration's 
and congressional actions have been chilling and demoralizing. 
Researchers are practicing self-censorship or leaving government 
careers entirely.
  Let me conclude, if I may, with one final comment of Richard Feynman. 
He said, ``It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great 
process which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, 
knowing of the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, 
to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be 
feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our 
duty to all coming generations.''
  We must do that not only as scientists but as Representatives.

                          ____________________