On Wednesday, an article by Amanda Carpenter in the Washington Times riled ScienceBlogger Jessica Palmer and others for its sensational claims and misrepresentation of facts. The article accuses presidential science advisor John Holdren of advocating extreme population control methods like mass sterilization and forced abortions, policies which Holdren discussed in a 1977 ecoscience textbook of which he was third author. But Holdren never expressed an opinion on such practices, and as Jessica explains, "there is a big difference between describing a conclusion made by others, and drawing a conclusion yourself." This is not the first time she's called out bad journalism: She also took on the Telegraph earlier this month.
- "Description misrepresented as endorsement": Bludgeoning Obama's science advisor with a 1977 textbook on bioephemera
- Telegraph: blame the rape victims - science says you can! on bioephemera
More like this
Atop other Obama appointments, this is one I suspect America's scientists will welcome. From the Washington Post:
ScienceDebate2008 are reporting that John Holdren is going to be nominated as Presidential Science Adivsor, and Jane Lubchenco for head of NOAA.
This is good news.
That's the word from the Washington Post. Like, wow. Lubchenco is yet another distinguished scientist and ScienceDebate2008 supporter. We are racking them up in this administration.
No. But that's apparently not enough to keep some people from making the claim.