More than 200 scientists
employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been
directed to alter official findings to lessen protections for plants and
animals, a survey released Wednesday says.
The survey of the agency's scientific staff of 1,400 had a 30% response
rate and was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
A division of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife
Service is charged with determining which animals and plants should be
placed on the endangered species list and designating areas where such
species need to be protected.
More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to
the survey said they knew of cases in which commercial interests,
including timber, grazing, development and energy companies, had applied
political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions deemed harmful to
their business.
Bush administration officials, including Craig Manson, an assistant
secretary of the Interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service,
have been critical of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, contending that
its implementation has imposed hardships on developers and others while
failing to restore healthy populations of wildlife.
Along with Republican leaders in Congress, the administration is
pushing to revamp the act. The president's proposed budget calls for a
$3-million reduction in funding of Fish and Wildlife's endangered
species programs.
"The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has
become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," said
Lexi Shultz of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Mitch Snow, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the
agency had no comment on the survey, except to say "some of the basic
premises just aren't so."
The two groups that circulated the survey also made available memos
from Fish and Wildlife officials that instructed employees not to
respond to the survey, even if they did so on their own time. Snow said
that agency employees could not use work time to respond to outside
surveys.
Fish and Wildlife scientists in 90 national offices were asked 42
questions and given space to respond in essay form in the mail-in survey
sent in November.
One scientist working in the Pacific region, which includes California,
wrote: "I have been through the reversal of two listing decisions due to
political pressure. Science was ignored ??” and worse, manipulated, to
build a bogus rationale for reversal of these listing decisions."
More than 20% of survey responders reported they had been "directed to
inappropriately exclude or alter technical information."
However, 69% said they had never been given such a directive. And,
although more than half of the respondents said they had been ordered to
alter findings to lessen protection of species, nearly 40% said they had
never been required to do so.
Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with
the agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results,
saying she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.
"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases,"
she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust
the science coming out of the agency."
A biologist in Alaska wrote in response to the survey: "It is one thing
for the department to dismiss our recommendations, it is quite another
to be forced (under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is
counter to our best professional judgment."
Don Lindburg, head of the office of giant panda conservation at the
Zoological Society of San Diego, said it was unrealistic to expect
federal scientists to be exempt from politics or pressure.
"I've not stood in the shoes of any of those scientists," he said. "But
it is not difficult for me to believe that there are pressures from
those who are not happy with conservation objectives, and here I am
referring to development interest and others.
"But when it comes to altering data, that is a serious matter. I am
really sorry to hear that scientists working for the service feel they
have to do that. Changing facts to fit the politics ??” that is a very
unhealthy thing. If I were a scientist in that position I would just
refuse to do it."
The Union of Concerned Scientists and the public employee group
provided copies of the survey and excerpts from essay-style responses.
One biologist based in California, who responded to the survey, said in
an interview with The Times that the Fish and Wildlife Service was not
interested in adding any species to the endangered species list.
"For biologists who do endangered species analysis, my experience is
that the majority of them are ordered to reverse their conclusions [if
they favor listing]. There are other biologists who will do it if you
won't," said the biologist, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Source: LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scientists10feb10,0,4954654.
story?coll=la-home-nation
-
MAGIC EIGHT-BALL DEPARTMENT -
Can This Black Box See Into
the Future?
![]()
Deep in the basement of a dusty university library in Edinburgh lies a
small black box, roughly the size of two cigarette packets side by side,
that churns out random numbers in an endless stream.
At first glance it is an unremarkable piece of equipment. Encased in
metal, it contains at its heart a microchip no more complex than the
ones found in modern pocket calculators.
But, according to a growing band of top scientists, this box has quite
extraordinary powers. It is, they claim, the 'eye' of a machine that
appears capable of peering into the future and predicting major world
events.
The machine apparently sensed the September 11 attacks on the World
Trade Centre four hours before they happened - but in the fevered mood
of conspiracy theories of the time, the claims were swiftly knocked back
by sceptics. But last December, it also appeared to forewarn of the
Asian tsunami just before the deep sea earthquake that precipitated the
epic tragedy.
Now, even the doubters are acknowledging that here is a small box with
apparently inexplicable powers.
'It's Earth-shattering stuff,' says Dr Roger Nelson, emeritus
researcher at Princeton University in the United States, who is heading
the research project behind the 'black box' phenomenon.
'We're very early on in the process of trying to figure out what's
going on here. At the moment we're stabbing in the dark.' Dr Nelson's
investigations, called the Global Consciousness Project, were originally
hosted by Princeton University and are centred on one of the most
extraordinary experiments of all time. Its aim is to detect whether all
of humanity shares a single subconscious mind that we can all tap into
without realising.
And machines like the Edinburgh black box have thrown up a tantalising
possibility: that scientists may have unwittingly discovered a way of
predicting the future.
Although many would consider the project's aims to be little more than
fools' gold, it has still attracted a roster of 75 respected scientists
from 41 different nations. Researchers from Princeton - where Einstein
spent much of his career - work alongside scientists from universities
in Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany. The project is
also the most rigorous and longest-running investigation ever into the
potential powers of the paranormal.
'Very often paranormal phenomena evaporate if you study them for long
enough,' says physicist Dick Bierman of the University of Amsterdam.
'But this is not happening with the Global Consciousness Project. The
effect is real. The only dispute is about what it means.'
The project has its roots in the extraordinary work of Professor Robert
Jahn of Princeton University during the late 1970s. He was one of the
first modern scientists to take paranormal phenomena seriously.
Intrigued by such things as telepathy, telekinesis - the supposed
psychic power to move objects without the use of physical force - and
extrasensory perception, he was determined to study the phenomena using
the most up-to-date technology available.
One of these new technologies was a humble-looking black box known was
a Random Event Generator (REG). This used computer technology to
generate two numbers - a one and a zero - in a totally random sequence,
rather like an electronic coin-flipper.
The pattern of ones and noughts - 'heads' and 'tails' as it were -
could then be printed out as a graph. The laws of chance dictate that
the generators should churn out equal numbers of ones and zeros - which
would be represented by a nearly flat line on the graph. Any deviation
from this equal number shows up as a gently rising curve.
During the late 1970s, Prof Jahn decided to investigate whether the
power of human thought alone could interfere in some way with the
machine's usual readings. He hauled strangers off the street and asked
them to concentrate their minds on his number generator. In effect, he
was asking them to try to make it flip more heads than tails.
It was a preposterous idea at the time. The results, however, were
stunning and have never been satisfactorily explained.
Again and again, entirely ordinary people proved that their minds could
influence the machine and produce significant fluctuations on the graph,
'forcing it' to produce unequal numbers of 'heads' or 'tails'.
According to all of the known laws of science, this should not have
happened - but it did. And it kept on happening.
Dr Nelson, also working at Princeton University, then extended Prof
Jahn's work by taking random number machines to group meditations, which
were very popular in America at the time. Again, the results were
eyepopping. The groups were collectively able to cause dramatic shifts
in the patterns of numbers.
From then on, Dr Nelson was hooked.
Using the internet, he connected up 40 random event generators from all
over the world to his laboratory computer in Princeton. These ran
constantly, day in day out, generating millions of different pieces of
data. Most of the time, the resulting graph on his computer looked more
or less like a flat line.
But then on September 6, 1997, something quite extraordinary happened:
the graph shot upwards, recording a sudden and massive shift in the
number sequence as his machines around the world started reporting huge
deviations from the norm. The day was of historic importance for another
reason, too.
For it was the same day that an estimated one billion people around the
world watched the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales at Westminster
Abbey.
Dr Nelson was convinced that the two events must be related in some way.
Could he have detected a totally new phenomena? Could the concentrated
emotional outpouring of millions of people be able to influence the
output of his REGs. If so, how?
Dr Nelson was at a loss to explain it.
So, in 1998, he gathered together scientists from all over the world to
analyse his findings. They, too, were stumped and resolved to extend and
deepen the work of Prof Jahn and Dr Nelson. The Global Consciousness
Project was born.
Since then, the project has expanded massively. A total of 65 Eggs (as
the generators have been named) in 41 countries have now been recruited
to act as the 'eyes' of the project.
And the results have been startling and inexplicable in equal measure.
For during the course of the experiment, the Eggs have 'sensed' a whole
series of major world events as they were happening, from the Nato
bombing of Yugoslavia to the Kursk submarine tragedy to America's hung
election of 2000.
The Eggs also regularly detect huge global celebrations, such as New
Year's Eve.
But the project threw up its greatest enigma on September 11, 2001.
As the world stood still and watched the horror of the terrorist
attacks unfold across New York, something strange was happening to the
Eggs.
Not only had they registered the attacks as they actually happened, but
the characteristic shift in the pattern of numbers had begun four hours
before the two planes even hit the Twin Towers.
They had, it appeared, detected that an event of historic importance
was about to take place before the terrorists had even boarded their
fateful flights. The implications, not least for the West's security
services who constantly monitor electronic 'chatter', are clearly
enormous.
'I knew then that we had a great deal of work ahead of us,' says Dr
Nelson.
What could be happening? Was it a freak occurrence, perhaps?
Apparently not. For in the closing weeks of December last year, the
machines went wild once more.
Twenty-four hours later, an earthquake deep beneath the Indian Ocean
triggered the tsunami which devastated South-East Asia, and claimed the
lives of an estimated quarter of a million people.
So could the Global Consciousness Project really be forecasting the
future?
Cynics will quite rightly point out that there is always some global
event that could be used to 'explain' the times when the Egg machines
behaved erratically. After all, our world is full of wars, disasters and
terrorist outrages, as well as the occasional global celebration. Are
the scientists simply trying too hard to detect patterns in their raw
data?
The team behind the project insist not. They claim that by using
rigorous scientific techniques and powerful mathematics it is possible
to exclude any such random connections.
'We're perfectly willing to discover that we've made mistakes,' says Dr
Nelson. 'But we haven't been able to find any, and neither has anyone
else.
Our data shows clearly that the chances of getting these results by
fluke are one million to one against.
That's hugely significant.' But many remain sceptical.
Professor Chris French, a psychologist and noted sceptic at Goldsmiths
College in London, says: 'The Global Consciousness Project has generated
some very intriguing results that cannot be readily dismissed. I'm
involved in similar work to see if we get the same results. We haven't
managed to do so yet but it's only an early experiment. The jury's still
out.' Strange as it may seem, though, there's nothing in the laws of
physics that precludes the possibility of foreseeing the future.
It is possible - in theory - that time may not just move forwards but
backwards, too. And if time ebbs and flows like the tides in the sea, it
might just be possible to foretell major world events. We would, in
effect, be 'remembering' things that had taken place in our future.
'There's plenty of evidence that time may run backwards,' says Prof
Bierman at the University of Amsterdam.
'And if it's possible for it to happen in physics, then it can happen
in our minds, too.' In other words, Prof Bierman believes that we are
all capable of looking into the future, if only we could tap into the
hidden power of our minds. And there is a tantalising body of evidence
to support this theory.
Dr John Hartwell, working at the University of Utrecht in the
Netherlands, was the first to uncover evidence that people could sense
the future. In the mid-1970s he hooked people up to hospital scanning
machines so that he could study their brainwave patterns.
He began by showing them a sequence of provocative cartoon drawings.
When the pictures were shown, the machines registered the subject's
brainwaves as they reacted strongly to the images before them. This was
to be expected.
Far less easy to explain was the fact that in many cases, these
dramatic patterns began to register a few seconds before each of the
pictures were even flashed up.
It was as though Dr Hartwell's case studies were somehow seeing into
the future, and detecting when the next shocking image would be shown
next.
It was extraordinary - and seemingly inexplicable.
But it was to be another 15 years before anyone else took Dr Hartwell's
work further when Dean Radin, a researcher working in America, connected
people up to a machine that measured their skin's resistance to
electricity. This is known to fluctuate in tandem with our moods -
indeed, it's this principle that underlies many lie detectors.
Radin repeated Dr Hartwell's 'image response' experiments while
measuring skin resistance. Again, people began reacting a few seconds
before they were shown the provocative pictures. This was clearly
impossible, or so he thought, so he kept on repeating the experiments.
And he kept getting the same results.
'I didn't believe it either,' says Prof Bierman. 'So I also repeated
the experiment myself and got the same results. I was shocked. After
this I started to think more deeply about the nature of time.' To make
matters even more intriguing, Prof Bierman says that other mainstream
labs have now produced similar results but are yet to go public.
'They don't want to be ridiculed so they won't release their findings,'
he says. 'So I'm trying to persuade all of them to release their results
at the same time. That would at least spread the ridicule a little more
thinly!' If Prof Bierman is right, though, then the experiments are no
laughing matter.
They might help provide a solid scientific grounding for such strange
phenomena as 'deja vu', intuition and a host of other curiosities that
we have all experienced from time to time.
They may also open up a far more interesting possibility - that one day
we might be able to enhance psychic powers using machines that can 'tune
in' to our subconscious mind, machines like the little black box in
Edinburgh.
Just as we have built mechanical engines to replace muscle power, could
we one day build a device to enhance and interpret our hidden psychic
abilities?
Dr Nelson is optimistic - but not for the short term. 'We may be able
to predict that a major world event is going to happen. But we won't
know exactly what will happen or where it's going to happen,' he says.
'Put it this way - we haven't yet got a machine we could sell to the
CIA.'
But for Dr Nelson, talk of such psychic machines - with the potential
to detect global catastrophes or terrorist outrages - is of far less
importance than the implications of his work in terms of the human race.
For what his experiments appear to demonstrate is that while we may all
operate as individuals, we also appear to share something far, far
greater - a global consciousness. Some might call it the mind of God.
'We're taught to be individualistic monsters,' he says. 'We're driven
by society to separate ourselves from each other. That's not right.
We may be connected together far more intimately than we realise.'
Source: Daily Mail, RedNova
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126649
