RICHARD SHELBY, a Republican senator from Alabama, is a firm believer in a
citizen鈥檚 right to privacy. He鈥檚 all for supporting big business, especially
online business. But he thinks the Web has enormous potential for invading
people鈥檚 lives. 鈥淚 do not believe that anyone, either in the marketplace or the
government, has an unfettered right to the personal information of Americans.
That is why I believe that we must pause and consider what measures are
necessary to protect our privacy.鈥�
But Shelby鈥檚 concern for privacy does not, it appears, apply to scientists. A
few years ago he introduced a piece of legislation that would require all
federally funded scientists to release their raw data to anyone who
asked鈥攊f that data had been used to produce a scientific article or to
develop a federal regulation. Oil, mining and waste management industries wanted
access to data used for creating such things as clean air standards so their
in-house scientists could re-evaluate鈥� and presumably discredit鈥� the
regulations.
Not surprisingly, scientists let out a collective howl. 鈥淥ur data鈥檚 ours,鈥�
they said, or words to that effect. Supporters of the Shelby amendment countered
that the data was gathered using public funds, so the public ought to have a
right to look at it.
Advertisement
It鈥檚 up to the White House to determine how to implement the Shelby
amendment. The Clinton administration began the process, but it鈥檚 the job of the
Bush crowd to finish it. Candidate Bush shared Shelby鈥檚 concern for privacy, but
President Bush has already shown a fondness for addressing the concerns of big
business about excessive government regulation. Which will win, privacy or
expedience?
OK, say you鈥檙e a NASA engineer and you鈥檝e been planning and building a space
station for twenty years or so. Along comes a new president. He鈥檚 got his own
ideas about space, but you don鈥檛 know what they are. So you keep building and
hope for the best.
Well, the best didn鈥檛 materialise in President Bush鈥檚 first budget for
government spending. Money allocated to the International Space Station was less
than hoped for. Now there鈥檚 talk that NASA won鈥檛 be able to pay for a fancy new
escape vehicle that would have come in useful if things went awry up there.
Right now, the escape route is a Russian Soyuz vehicle. It carries three people.
When fully staffed, the station is supposed to carry six crew. Hmm鈥�
Does that mean there will now only be three crew? Well, researchers who鈥檝e
clung to the idea that the station is going to offer a place to do real
scientific research wonder who鈥檒l do the experiments. There will be a lot of
maintenance and logistical work to do up there. How can three people do that and
run the research projects as well? Expect to hear more about this when NASA鈥檚
budget comes before its friends in Congress this spring.
THE ONE substantive eco-promise that Bush made during his campaign was to cut
carbon dioxide emissions, the principal cause of greenhouse warming. The woman
he appointed as director of the Environment Protection Agency, Christine Todd
Whitman, believed her boss and has promoted the idea. Now Bush has changed his
mind. It鈥檚 not only a blow for Whitman and environmentalists. The state
department and other federal agencies still harbour staff who are trying to push
the US toward ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Republicans in
Washington have tried to root them out, so Bush鈥檚 initial promise had been a ray
of hope. Chances are they鈥檒l either hunker down or find new work.