Right-wing Attacks on Science Adviser Continue

Last week, Chris Mooney described how the Washington Times and a cadre of right-wing bloggers have been fearmongering about John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Now FoxNews has jumped on the bandwagon with a story implying that Holdren advocated radical population control measures, a claim that is simply not the case, as he has made clear both in recent statements and in his Senate testimony. The repeated mischaracterization of his work and positions is a distraction from current pressing matters of science policy.

At issue is a chapter of the 1977 textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, for which Holdren was the third author with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich. First of all, FoxNews gets the name of the man in question wrong in the opening line of the story, claiming the President’s science adviser is “Paul Holdren,” and referring to him as a “science czar,” a title suggesting that he was appointed without Congressional oversight. But after he testified before the Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, the Senate voted unanimously to confirm John Holdren as director of OSTP.

Mooney also pointed out that FoxNews commentator Sean Hannity is confused about how Holdren came to his post, claiming on air that “[Obama has] skirted the Senate confirmation process and has empowered individuals to see major offices now within the federal government, many of whom operate only under the supervision of the White House itself.” Again, for the benefit of the Fox researchers, here’s the video of the Senate testimony.

In Ecoscience, Holdren and the Ehrlichs explain that their section on overpopulation offers an overview of population control measures suggested by other writers, and some of these are extreme and coercive, including forced abortions and sterilization. But the text makes clear that Holdren does not support these measures, referring to the “obvious moral objections” on page 787 of the book. (Helpfully, Fox provides a .pdf of this very section.)

More importantly, Holdren stated during the Senate hearing that he does not support or endorse these ideas. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) asked him: “You think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?” to which Holdren replied: “No, Senator, I do not.” The exchange begins at 122:30 here; transcript here. As well, three months passed between the President’s announcement that he intended to nominate Holdren and the hearing itself—ample time to investigate his past and raise any salient concerns.

Mooney goes on in refuting the current criticism:

But wait, you may be wondering: How do I know that the Ehrlichs are right about the their 1977 text, and not the conservatives? Well, because I walked over to the Engineering Library on the Princeton University campus, where I’m located, and got the book. And I can see how one could misread a text this old—from such a different time. But nevertheless, the criticism of Holdren today on this basis is exceedingly thin and stretched. The book is three decades old; Holdren isn’t its first author; it takes a stance against such policies; and neither Holdren nor the Ehrlichs support these policies today, either. Couldn’t we talk about something that’s actually important and contemporary?

Here’s one suggestion for an important and contemporary science policy issue in OSTP’s portfolio: the recently released administration report on how climate change is already threatening the health and livelihoods of Americans across the country. Maybe Fox could consider 1300 words on the implications of that text.

Image: flickr.com/nationalacademyofsciences

Posted by Andrew Plemmons Pratt | July 21, 2009 | Share This |

Tags: ostp

Comments on this article

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

7 Responses to “Right-wing Attacks on Science Adviser Continue”

Mark Bahner says:
“Now FoxNews has jumped on the bandwagon with a story implying that Holdren advocated radical population control measures, a claim that is simply not the case,…”

Quoting from Ecoscience, “In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

In case Science Progress is unfamiliar with writing styles, this is what is known as a “rhetorical question.”

The authors are effectively asserting, “The law should be able to prevent a person from having more than two children.”

“Here’s one suggestion for an important and contemporary science policy issue in OSTP’s portfolio: the recently released administration report on how climate change is already threatening the health and livelihoods of Americans across the country.”

Let’s ask John Holdren whether he thinks this report supports his assertion in 1986 that CO2-induced climate-change famines could kill as many as a billion people by 2020.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/02/022847.php

From his Senate testimony (under oath, presumably) he still thinks that CO2-induced climate change could cause a billion deaths by 2020. (For those of you not counting, that’s 11 years from now. So climate change will need to kill on average about 90 million people every year for the next 11 years for John Holdren’s prediction to come true.)

Of course, if Holdren was a Republican, Chris Mooney would use that statement to support how Republicans are engaging in a “war on science.” But of course, Holdren is not a Republican, so none of Holdren’s statements–no matter how ridiculously unscientific–will ever receive any critical analysis by Mooney (or likely anyone else at the Center for American Progress).
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
aperson says:
Your posting is totally incomplete because it does not include the original essay which started the controversy and which contains basically all the evidence against Holdren. In case you are unaware of it, here’s the link:

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

ALL the coverage you cite was derived from this essay. Best to refer to the source rather than second-hand rewrites.
July 25th, 2009 at 1:38 am
JC says:
Andrew,

Mark is absolutely right. What is your response to the rhetorical question from Ecoscience that Mark pastes?

Further, you incorrectly cite that Holdren asserts his “obvious moral objections” to government-mandated implantation of sterilization capsules. He does not do this; rather, he simply states in a parenthetical that there would be moral objections–he is silent on whether he holds them.

You can’t on one hand dismiss the pages and pages of radical ideas presented as simply dispassionate “discussion” of ideas “suggested by other writers” and then on the other hand argue that the one mention of moral objections in the text is somehow Holdren’s personal commentary.

Good effort but you are defending the indefensible.
July 27th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
NH says:
Who cares if Hannity was confused.
We are well aware of the nightmare trio that obama has put around him and what their beliefs are.

Holdren, Emanuel, E., and Sunstein all have scary philosophies that should have made them UNQUALIFIED to serve in public office.

We know that it’s about control, taxation and world government.

These people are just nutty scumbags — just like Podesta who runs this far left nutjob group.
August 9th, 2009 at 3:56 am
Gaby says:
Please stop defending crazy Holdren who thinks that babies are not humans until they are several years old.
BTW you can report me to the new Obama’s truth department flag@whitehouse.gov.
Flag your neighbor lest you’ll be flagged first this is what this country is coming to under obama thuggish administration.
August 9th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Peter LaFond says:
My name is Peter LaFond and actually know John Holdren: He likes to fish, likes dogs, and can get confused about a cell phone. When with this family he would rather talk baseball or anything but politics, but will entertain and entreaties. He has children,too.

The problem most right wing people have is that he doed not use his intellect to enrich himself and run peoples lives the way right wing people.

for my part I do not know “W” so i can not make a personal statement about him- but I dislike his policies and attitude- but for all know he could be the nicest person I ever met. peace
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
NHBuckeye says:
Dear Mr. LaFond,

Your statement, “The problem most right wing people have is that he doed (sic) not use his intellect to enrich himself and run peoples lives the way right wing people.” is nonsensical. “Right wing people” are interested in freedom. Certainly not the freedom to murder one’s own children, generally, but right wing people ARE for freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution. It is the left wing, the Progressives, who think they know better than the rest of us “morons” and who think they should have control over our assets to redistribute as makes them feel better about the inherent unfairness of life. They are for slavery of the general population, they are for control for themselves so that they can “right the wrongs” of capitalism. It is pathetic fantasy to think that the progressive ideology would increase peace, freedom, and prosperity. They suck the life out of those who they promise the world to get their votes. Then they suck the life out of the rest of us. These people had to lie to get power, and now they have to lie, manipulate, and diminish in order to get their policies passed. The reality is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. The reality is that the abuse the American economy can take is not limitless. I hope you don’t count yourself among those evil, selfish, power-hungry socialists.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:36 am