The New York Times has occasionally come under some criticism here at Prometheus. But in an editorial Tuesday on the politicization of science, the Time gets it just about right when it observes:

“The Bush administration has from time to time found it convenient to distort science to serve political ends. The result is a purposeful confusion of scientific protocols in which “sound science” becomes whatever the administration says it is. In the short run, this is a tactic to override basic environmental protections in favor of industry. In the long run, it undermines the authority of science itself.”

Of course the same might be said of Bill Clinton, Bush Sr., Ronald Reagan, etc. There are of course those who enjoy debating who is a “worse” offender in distorting science – Here is my 2 cents on that topic from an article in the 17 Sept 2004 Chronicle of Higher Education:

“Scientists are thinking too narrowly if they view presidential politics as the forum for resolving the debate, says Roger A. Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. “It’s very plausible to me that the Bush administration is the most egregious offender in misusing science, or the most skilled, depending on your perspective,” he says. However, that “doesn’t mean that under a Kerry administration, everything would be just fine,” he adds. Scientists will still need to work to counter interest groups that spin research results to support their views.”

And while the New York Times doesn’t tell us what is meant by “the authority of science itself,” they certainly don’t imply that science necessarily implies that one political perspective should always win out over another. And this nuance is just about right.