First, comes defense of the Administration. Next...
Maybe this isn't going to be one more in a long line, but I can't help but think of Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson, Paul O'Neill, David Kay, and all the rest who have felt the wrath of the Bush Administration once they told the truth {UPDATE: looks like we can add Jack Spadaro to the list. Who is Jack Spadaro?}. The President's senior advisor on science and technology issues, Dr. John Marburger, a lifelong Democrat, is defending the Bush record on science in the face of the charges by the Union of Concerned Scientists. At least he is for now.

"In February, the advocacy group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has long criticized administration policies on issues like biotechnology, global warming and nuclear power, released a 38-page report, finding, 'There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.'

The report was endorsed by 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and people who had served in past Republican administrations.

Yesterday, Dr. Marburger rejected almost every point. 'The accusations in the document are inaccurate, and certainly do not justify the sweeping conclusions of either the document or the accompanying statement,' he wrote."

But the legacy of this administration leaves me wondering what will happen if Dr. Marburger--or someone else in the office of science and technology--decides to write a book, or give an interview, when he leaves his post. Will we find out that he was just being a team player in this response? Will we hear an admission to the contrary of these assurances? And if we do, how long before we hear how partisan, disgruntled, unreliable, or even crazy Dr. Marburger is? I can't help but assume, at this point, that the truth in this case will show what we already know about the Bush administration's attitude to facts: they are paid little mind. And that the President's defenders are, ultimately, putting an overly optimistic face on a troublesome reality. Given the dismal record, why should we be anything but doubtful?

In either case, even if the science and environmental offices have gotten better at acknowledging facts on the surface (remember the EPA's global warming site?), and throwing money into research, those advances are not making their way into US policy, that's for sure.

If you want to read the whole report, rebutting the UCS statement, go here.