Well, they are critics of the Bush administration generally on the human rights record of the administration, and in particular, they are very, very critical of this use of science.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Individual scientists cannot do much on their own. Heads of nations, corporates, and economic giants should recognise the criticality of it.
Perhaps it would be better for science, that all criticism should be avowed.
Scientists are being portrayed by much of the power structure in politics and business as having a vested interest - that they're just out to get more grant money by exaggerating the threats.
Scientists generally are really chicken about getting involved in some kind of dispute. As a broadcaster, I find it very difficult to urge them, if it is a controversial subject. They don't want to have science being portrayed badly.
The public impression is that the government, industry or the highest bidder can buy a scientist to add credibility to any message. That crucial quality of impartiality is being lost.
If Baltimore's view, that scientists who do not take the words of authorities are far removed from the ordinary behavior of scientists, prevails in the scientific community, then something fundamental, very serious, and very disturbing is happening to the scientific community.
The media thinks that you have to make science sexy and concentrate on themes such as rivalry and the human issues.
I find it greatly disturbing that the Bush administration has used political and religious ideologies to influence national policy on science and medicine.
They cannot count on the press and they cannot count on Congressional committees to bring the problems of the scientific community to their own attention, or to police the scientific community.
Some of the FDA's own scientists have charged that politics, not science, is behind the FDA's actions.
No opposing quotes found.