Trump Administration Censorship of Government Offices

[RevolverRob]

It's happening right now. The Trump Administration has informed research scientists and employees that they may not discuss tax-payer funded research with anyone outside of their own agency.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...A_FB_POLE_NEWS

That's ludicrous and resembles efforts by the Soviets to control scientific information that resulted in things like Lysenkoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) - Which was directly responsible for the deaths of over 3000 Soviet scientists who objected to the non-scientific theory. It's also responsible in part for Soviet Famines post-WW2 resulting in the death of millions of Soviet subjects.

Folks - you need to write to your Congressmen - NOW to urge them to lift these onerous restricts. There are no positives that can come of limiting the flow of scientific information, either to the public or amongst inter-agency collaborations. The way these memos are worded, it prevents Federally-employed scientists from effectively communicating research to their collaborators at alternate institutions. It's the ultimate form of science stoppage.

As a note: I am biased and I have many colleagues and peers employed by state and federal agencies. These folks aren't trying to steal your money, they are trying to be scientists who do good science. They want to better understand the world and help you better understand it as well. The Trump Administration is deliberately limiting their ability to do this, by issuing these types of directives. It has nothing to do with saving taxpayers money and everything to do with controlling "the narrative" of their political desires. If you feel that the Obama Administration controlled "the narrative" and it sickened you, I would suggest you are morally obligated to feel the same about the Trump Administration doing the same thing.

[Willard]

You are buying into the left's narrative. I'll post this and leave it, as I won't engage in a prolonged dialogue. But I will provide just one example of problems with tax-payer funded science vs "sagecraft" (a Gary Kleck term). Unsurprisingly, it has to do with guns.

You may, or may not, be familiar with Arthur Kellerman. He was a medical doctor who wrote several pieces that were published in medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine (similar research was presented in JAMA, and he may have been published there as well...I cannot recall), warning about the dangers of gun ownership. In brief, his research claimed to demonstrate that if you kept a gun in your home, you were multiple times more likely to be killed than use it in defense. There were several others with similar research and similar criticism.

Critics found what they believed were problems with said research. For example, they said if you lived in a high crime neighborhood and owned a gun as a reasonable response to the threat, and were subsequently killed by an intruder, your ownership of a gun was linked to your demise, even if the intruder killed you with a gun he brought into your residence (not your gun). Critics believed correlation was confused with causation. Additionally, they reported no accounting for defensive gun use that didn't include killing an intruder (e.g. scaring off intruders by displaying the weapon, etc), a lack of controls for people who might be at higher likelihood of owning a gun and being murdered (drug dealers for example), and the list goes on and on. These studies were criticized by Don Kates, Gary Kleck, John Lott, Wright and Rossi, and others, but funded by tax-payers.

A quote from John Lott's "More Guns Less Crime" demonstrates one of the aforementioned concerns with Kellerman's research, "To demonstrate this, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died — quite probably a stronger relationship than that between homicides and gun ownership in Kellerman’s study. If so, would we take that as evidence that hospitals kill people?"

Government funding was eventually cut for these types of epidemiological guns studies (to the dismay of the left) due to a concern that tax payers were funding politically motivated research rather than science, although if I recall correctly, Obama attempted to reinstate it. Hopefully, this demonstrates just one small example of why some don't want tax-payer funded research that may be problematic and support a political narrative. I suspect the current administration is trying to get a handle on what types of "research" is being presented and whether it is science or "sagecraft," but isn't attempting to black out science. YMMV.

[fishing]

You are buying into the left's narrative. I'll post this and leave it, as I won't engage in a prolonged dialogue.

I wish you would return and inform.
I'm not too educated on the topic brought up by OP.

Willard, I'm not sure what your perception of the left's narrative is here, and I think the case you wrote about doesn't adequately support a conclusion either way about the topic at hand.

[scjbash]

According to this article it wasn't a directive issued by Trump, and is standard practice when a new administration will be appointing new directors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...her-documents/

[fishing]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that DJT as president means that the US, it's people and it's leaders will be faced with and take on difficult problems that are either new, or have been previously ignored.

The ability of he and his cabinet to solve these issues, to the benefit or detriment of the American people is unproven.

I am both excited and worried about this.

[Joe in PNG]

My current belief is that everything said about the Trump admin by the media is deliberately slanted in some way to make him look bad- the same rule I have for all "police maliciously shoot innocent minority choirboy because racism" stories.
Give it time, and do more research, and you find out that the original report may be a bit biased.

[RevolverRob]

According to this article it wasn't a directive issued by Trump, and is standard practice when a new administration will be appointing new directors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...her-documents/

This does not explain the requests to remove and censor official social media accounts from the EPA or the National Park Service.

You are buying into the left's narrative. I'll post this and leave it, as I won't engage in a prolonged dialogue. But I will provide just one example of science vs sagecraft (a Gary Kleck term) and how the left uses "science" to their benefit. Unsurprisingly, it has to do with guns.

With all due respect. And I mean this as politely as possible. I'm certain that I have more knowledge and understanding of this particular issue than you are able to comprehend. My day job is as a research scientist at a Tier 1 research institution. My collaborators, friends, peers work at the USDA, the National Park Service, and the US Geological Survey - many of them in supervisory positions. I've seen more than the news media coverage regarding these memos and the nature of language used by administrators to enforce them. - I admitted my bias in my original post.

You may, or may not, be familiar with Arthur Kellerman. He was a medical doctor who wrote several pieces that were published in medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine (similar research was presented in JAMA, and he may have been published there as well...I cannot recall), warning about the dangers of gun ownership. In brief, his research claimed to demonstrate that if you kept a gun in your home, you were multiple times more likely to be killed than use it in defense.

Critics found what they believed were problems with said research. For example, they said if you lived in a high crime neighborhood and owned a gun in response to the threat, and were subsequently killed by an intruder, your ownership of a gun was linked to your demise, even if the intruder killed you with a gun he brought into your residence. Critics believed correlation was confused with causation. Additionally, they reported no accounting for defensive gun use that didn't include killing an intruder (e.g. scaring off intruders by displaying the weapon, etc), a lack of controls for people who might be at higher likelihood of owning a gun and being murdered (drug dealers for example), and the list goes on and on. Studies like his were criticized by Kates, Kleck, Lott, Wright and Rossi, and others, but funded by tax-payers.

I honestly have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Unless this is an attempt to undersell the nature of statistical studies in general. I have read Lott's studies and they are not perfect. Not to spend too long on this point, but the Kellerman study - was correct. You have an increased chance of being killed with a firearm if one lives in your home. Why that is the case can be debated - but the bottom line and I've said this before and I will say it again - If there isn't a gun present - a gun cannot be used. There is a 100% correlation/causation to Presence of Gun = Ability to Get Shot.

A quote from John Lott's "More Guns Less Crime" demonstrates the concerns with Kellerman's research, "To demonstrate this, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died — quite probably a stronger relationship than that between homicides and gun ownership in Kellerman’s study. If so, would we take that as evidence that hospitals kill people?"

This is rhetorical device sold by Lott - It is called a Strawman Argument and you've bought it hook-line-sinker. (But I'm the one who has bought into a "narrative"...)

Government funding was eventually cut for these types of epidemiological guns studies (to the dismay of the left) due to a concern that tax payers were funding politically motivated research, although if I recall correctly, Obama attempted to reinstate it. Hopefully, this demonstrates just one small example of why some don't want tax-payer funded research that may be problematic and support a political narrative. I suspect the current administration is trying to get a handle on what types of "research" is being presented and isn't attempting to black out science. YMMV.

This might come as a shock to you. But blocking the collection of data is the same as funding data with a political motive. It serves a broader political purpose. You just do not have a problem with it, because you happen to come down on what you deem the "correct" side of this particular debate. Which is contrary to the point of my post - Federal Government Censorship - is not okay. Be it left or right.

[Edwin]

My current belief is that everything said about the Trump admin by the media is deliberately slanted in some way to make him look bad- the same rule I have for all "police maliciously shoot innocent minority choirboy because racism" stories.
Give it time, and do more research, and you find out that the original report may be a bit biased.

Oh sweetie, Trump doesn't need help with that. He's plenty good there.

[Arbninftry]

It's happening right now. The Trump Administration has informed research scientists and employees that they may not discuss tax-payer funded research with anyone outside of their own agency.

[url]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-administration-restricts-news-from-federal-scientists-at-usda-epa/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_POLE_NEWS[/url

This is nothing new.
if you work in government you can not use an official social media account to contradict or belittle this or any admin. That quote of yours left that out. The censoring happens when two official social media accounts from park service and someone else bashed and contradicted Preisdent Trump's admin. This was not about personal media accounts, unless you are military then they can send you to jail for it. This has always been the federal regulations. If you work in government you have to support whoever is in charge from either party.

So if you use an official government social media page to bash your boss you will be looking for a job very quickly. If that would have been done under Slick Willy or Odumbo, you would have been screwed. Now if you do that to Trump, prepare to be unemployed.

I hope you are not studying drunk frogs or mating habits of drunk college kids. I want my taxpayer money to go to something worthwhile.

[fixer]

Reigning in federal agencies is something we aren't used to apparently.