Don’t Let Politics Affect Science
This weekend, Dr. Julie Gerberding resigned as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and will be replaced by an interim deputy director. I hope that President-elect Barrack Obama’s replacement will be made on the basis of merit rather than politics.
The CDC is one of the major branches of the Department of Health and Human Services. One of its major roles is to make sure America is prepared for new health threats. One of its major focuses has been on disease prevention and therefore it is my opinion that its new director should have strong roots in clinical medicine as well as research.
The CDC has turned into a very large bureaucracy with offices in 54 countries around the world, and even though it is one of the best run government agencies in the country, it must reengineer itself to meet the health challenges of the new Century.
As we look at where America is in terms of disease prevention, these are the areas where we need to do a better job: heart disease, diabetes, pregnancy care and bioterrorism.
I’ve never truly understood how scientific government positions are chosen. I wish that we would have more transparency so that we can understand on what merit some of our top scientists are chosen.
I have recently read some of the top names that are circulating as a possible director of the CDC, which include the health directors of many of our cities, including Dr. Thomas Friedman, the health commissioner of New York City.
However, I would suggest that if we really want change to occur in the CDC, the new director should have a strong clinical research background. So here’s my list of some candidates that I hope will be considered:
Dr. Charles Lockwood – Chairman of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Yale University.
Dr. David R. Bickers – Chairman of Dermatology at Columbia University.
Dr. William C. Wood – Chief of Surgery at Emory
Dr. Michael Lincoff – Director of Clinical Research at Cleveland Clinic
These are a few great scientists I hope the Obama transition team will look at. And, as I said, politics should not play a role in choosing our top scientists – and I hope it doesn’t.
I just hope and pray Obama won’t appoint yet more pro-death, pro-abortion, experiment-on-unborn- children- and- then- discard- them- after- their- stem cells- are- obtained and get-rid-of-the-elderly-via-euthanasia-when-they-are-ill proponents. Heaven help us if he does!! Just because science may be able to do something doesn’t make it right. Just because I may know how to break into my neighbor’s house when they are at work doesn’t make it right for me to do so. The same is true for science. It must be kept in moral check, but unfortunately, we are well out of bounds already.
Unfortunately science, in recent years, has been trumped by politics on almost every level. If it were not for politics (and ego and money), the global warming nonsense would have been thrown into the trash a long time ago. Instead, we have billions of taxpayer money wasted on carbon trading schemes and the like.
We lost the politics out of CDC battle in the 1980s when AIDS patients were coddled and the public was told to fear heterosexual AIDS.
As a nurse, I couldn’t agree with you more. The CDC’s bloat could very well fail to protect Americans should the need arise. Politics should not be an issue, but job performance and the ability to run such an organization is key.
Thank you so much for your insight.
dr. manny, shouldn’t you have been saying this for the last 8 years of the bush administration where politics has trumped science each and every time? this woman was asked to resign because she trumps politics over science. nice try though dr. manny, better luck next time in slanting a story.
It is not possible to remove politics from the CDC or science for that matter. As long as scientists have opinions, you will have politics in science. Instead of trying to pretend that politics are some offensive symptom of a greater disease, we have to accept these opinions as what they are. Scientists should be vetted as anyone else is, it is the law that will control how the resources at the CDC are used. Considering our current problem with obesity in our country, the CDC should lead the way by trimming the bloat at their own agency. Pulling back from 54 foreign sites and creating a lean, mean response team that can move between foreign outposts would be a good way to move considering the economic pressures we are currently facing. We cannot wave the fear flag of some pandemic just to increase funding. Again, scientists are no different than other people, they want to get paid and ensure their job security as well as anyone does. We need to know the political influences of ANYONE who wants to run this enormous agency because they will not be swabbing chickens in China, they will be determining where our money is to be spent.
You lost the politics-over-science battle years ago when the CDC began treating the Second Amendment as a disease. The AIDS fiasco just added to the problem. You’re too late by a long time.
hi dr.manny,im a 38yr old woman who has an abdominal pregnancy and even though the doctors have found the heartbeat and seen it move,they say it is impossible.why is it that third world countries can deliver such a baby but u.s.doctors say that its not medically possible and that i would be dead?as i try seek help which ive failed to do,doctors mostly ask me to leave the hospital even though they see im in alot of pain and they ve even told me that nothing is wrong with me even though my kidney wasnt in my back any more like it should be and a collasped lung and urinating blood.please if you can help me get answers.