As I often do, let me go backwards here.
3. I think there should be strong
legal protections for employees who make accusations against the people they work for, public or private. Of course, if the accusations are shown to be false, the employee may then face termination, and perhaps even legal action for libel. The burden of proof should be on the employer to show that the employee deserves to be disciplined. (Of course, no action should be taken against the employer until the accusations are shown to be valid.) This is even more important in the public sector than in the private sector.
2. This is perhaps a bit stronger than I would put it, but I think you are on to something here. It's only natural that anyone with an opinion about a controversial issue involving science will tend to accept those studies which support than point of view and reject those that disagree with it. The current administration has been criticized for its use -- or misuse -- of science in national policy:Link
This is an editorial, so it doesn't pretend to be objective. It does, however, offer these interesting facts:
62 of the nation's leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, signed a statement composed by the Union of Concerned Scientists decrying the administration's misuse of science. In the report that accompanied the statement, the union documented more than 30 examples that involved many of the major environmental concerns of our century. The report discussed abuses in the areas of climate change, the release of toxins into the environment (including lead and mercury) and the creation of forest management policy.
. . .
. . . scienceinpolicy.org, has performed a series of policy analyses that document the administration's misuse of science in environmental policy-making. Based on these analyses, we have written a statement claiming that "the Bush administration justifies environmental policies by misusing and misrepresenting science. The administration's harmful positions on climate change, pollution, forest management and resource extraction ignore widely accepted scientific evidence." To date, more than 1,500 environmental scientists from all 50 states and countries around the world, including academics from professors emeriti to graduate students and scientists from government, industry and nongovernmental organizations have signed the statement . . .
Here are links to detailed examples from this organization:Link
Just a bunch of pointy-headed liberal ivory tower academics? Maybe, but one has to wonder.
1. It's no secret that both of the major political parties are very much pro-business. Here's a current example:Link (Click On "White House white-washes global warming data")
Again, this source does not pretend to be neutral on the issue, but this is interesting:
A top White House environmental official -- and former oil industry lobbyist -- repeatedly manipulated government reports to downplay the threat of global warming. Documents obtained by the Government Accountability Project reveal that between 2002 and 2003, Philip A. Cooney -- the chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality -- edited drafts of climate change reports to soften their findings.
Frankly, the fact that a "former oil industry lobbyist" is involved in any way
in national policy regarding the environment is itself a scandal.