As a foreign visitor, I am not involved in the politics behind many of the scientific issues being discussed today in the United States. I strongly believe that science should be independent of politicians, but this is, clearly, naivete on my part.
In any case, I would like to point out what to me is a contradiction: Every time a scientist dares to speak against the supposed mainstream ideas (therefore being politically incorrect), she or he is accused of being influenced by politicians. Who, then, is "hamstrung by political considerations," the person whose ideas coincide with the establishment in power (the Bush administration, for instance), or the one who would hope to constitute a future establishment (such as Bill Clinton)?
I refer to the article on Bernadine Healy by Scott Veggeberg that appeared on page 1 of the Sept. 14, 1992, issue of The Scientist. In the article, Rep. Louise ...
