WHAT'S A 15% FAILURE RATE AMONG CASUAL SEX PARTNERS:

Whose Science Is It, Anyway?: A new anti-abstinence report getting plenty of news play is hardly based on the indisputable fact the liberal congressman behind it suggests. (Jerry Gramckow, 12/02/04, CitizennLink)

Waxman's study snubbed the not-so-tantalizing "Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention" report from several of the nation's most prominent health agencies including the National Institutes of Health. This study concluded that condoms are about 85 percent effective in preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS and relatively effective in preventing female-to-male gonorrhea transmission. For all of the other 20-plus sexually transmitted diseases, the study found the evidence insufficient to determine condom effectiveness — despite the 97 percent effectiveness claim in Waxman's report.

As much as we'd like to believe all science is as pure and untainted as the rock-solid performances portrayed on "CSI," it isn't. It's practiced by humans. It's fallible. That's why some scientific studies often refute others. As Dr. Frederick Grinnell, a professor of cell biology, has written, "Although its practical effects indicate that science is powerful, the realization that scientific beliefs evolve over time should act as an antidote to scientific hubris. Science can never have more than a limited understanding of the world."

Furthermore, given a recent Danish government finding regarding Waxman's primary scientific source, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the congressman may want to rethink establishing a committee to study the Bush administration's "misuse" of data.

Many of the members of the UCS are legitimate scientists, with all the requisite credentials. Some are not. The UCS Web site describes its members as "people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students." Membership is open to all who "care about clean energy, clean vehicles, global security, food and the environment, and global issues such as climate change." The basic $25 UCS membership fee even includes a free UCS mouse pad.

The fact that not all the members of the Union of Concerned Scientists are true scientists does not mean the group is illegitimate and that its concerns should be dismissed. It does mean, however, that UCS is an agenda-driven advocacy group whose policy statements warrant the same level of scrutiny that should be applied to any report from any advocate. UCS members may not all be scholars, but they are all sold out to a radical environmental agenda.

Odd to assume it would be less agenda-driven if they were all scientists.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 2, 2004 6:49 PM