Surgeon General (2002-2006) and Science vs. President Bush.

the surgeon general who served from 2002 to 2006 has bitterly criticized the bush administration for disrespecting and censoring science in regard to medical health. to some extent, i agree and understand his frustrations. bush is not a very pro-science guy and many of his evangelical followers are worse. also, many big corporations--especially in tobacco and energy--have prolly pressured the bush administration to go easy on issues such as global warming and second hand smoke. all very true.

BUT, there has never been and can never be pure science in discussion of health issues. health issues are inexorably tied to social and political issues. a purely scientific or rationalist voice on health is impossible due to moral, spiritual, social, economic, and ideological factors. and this pressure comes from the left as much from the right.
for example, regarding the HIV issue we know that much of the infection spread thanks to irresponsible, promiscuous, and wild gay sex. but, which surgeon general publically condemned irresponsible gay behavior? his would-be condemnation would have been scientifically well-founded. but, he wouldn't have been allowed to say such cuz it would have been considered 'homophobic'--meaning whatever the gay agenda doesn't like. so, we've only spoke of the HIV infected as poor victims instead of spreaders and perpetrators of the AIDS epidemic.

as for health issues among blacks, we know that many black women are fat and unhealthy cuz they live on welfare, eat too much junk, and watch tv all day. this is true based on scientific data. but, what surgeon general would have been courageous and daring enough to say as much? and what would have happened if any surgeon general made such statement? he would be hounded as a 'racist'.

indeed, take food and obesity in general. we know that alot of americans are fat cuz much of what food companies and restaurants serve are fatty fried stuff or sugary stuff. but, how many surgeon generals have been forthright on this issue? whether serving under a democratic or republican president, the surgeon general has not waged a war on the fatty food industry. both the democratic and republican presidents rely too much on donations from food corporations.
the bigger reason as to why americans are so fat is, well, americans themselves. americans like to eat and eat and pig out like pigs. so many americans eat like hippos and elephants. there is a great deal of scientific data on this. yet, when has the surgeon general stood up and spoke honestly with the american people? when has he said, 'you guys are fat cuz you eat like pigs'. instead, the surgeon general wanna act like he's our friend. so, the surgeon general has never been a truly honest or scientific figure but simply a figurhead who symbolizes the federal government's concern for our health. indeed, why would anyone who cares so much for science even want to take such position? it's unavoidably a political and social position, not a scientific one.
also, medicine can never be totally scientific cuz there are too many ethical issus involved.
for example, it would scientifically be a great boon to experiment on those on deathrow. scientifically, it's valid, but ethically it may not be.
dogs and cats may be a good source of protein and be extracted for chemical elements useful in medicine. suppose such can be scientifically proven; so, should we allow dog and cat farming? no, such would be cruel and immoral.
and, for this reason, the issue concerning stem cell research is not merely a scientific issue. while i personally support federal funding for stem cell research, i can see why some people find the whole idea immoral. for them, the stem cell isn't just a cell but the origin of a human being.
scientifically, humans are no more than animals. but, we can't FEEL this way. we live not scientifically but morally, emotinally, and culturally. we use science, but we can not live science. indeed, 'all men are created equal' is the most unscientific thing ever said.

finally, the former surgeon general complained about bush administration's reluctance to face up to the dangers of second hand cigarette smoke. while i agree that there is scientific evidence for the danger of second hand smoke, isn't this more a political issue than a scientific issue?
isn't it part of the latest anti-tobacco agenda in the socio-activist sphere?
if indeed smoking is so terrible for us--and it is--, why focus mainly on second hand smoke? why not smoking itself? if the surgeon general really thinks tobacco is a killer, he should call for the outright banning or illegalization of tobacco. why not only save those who may affected by second hand smoke? what about all those who are affected--more gravely--by firsthand smoke? but, again, we cannot be totally scientific on this issue.
yes, tobacco is really bad, BUT we--including the surgeon general--know that if we ban tobacco, there will be huge criminal enterprise dealing in tobacco as such now deals with cocaine and pot. also, we know that too many people/interest groups will oppose it--not just smokers but government programs that depend on the tobacco tax. we also know that alot of people are employed in the tobacco industry--agricultural, manufacturing, etc.
so, even as we know the science of tobacco, no politician--and the surgeon general is more politician or public affairs official than scientist--would call for banning tobacco. we can't have pure science where too many social, political, and economic factors come into play. we can and should say that tobacco is harmful, but we can't say let's illegalize tobacco simply because science says it's bad. similarly, there is no evidence that refined sugar is any good; indeed, it's bad stuff. and the surgeon general should say so, but he shouldn't be expected to do anything beyond that. too many people want ice cream, and too many industries--and jobs--are tied to that industry. there is scientific reason for banning sugar and labeling it as a harmful substance, but that would simply be impractical and unpopular.

so, even as the bush administration needs to respect science more, the surgeon general--past, present, and future--must face up to the fact that he's not a scientist but essentially a titular figure spouting sanctimonious do-goody crap. in fact, it's a position that should be removed. there is no scientific justification for it.