Gregg Easterbrook on politics and science. In light of the Union of Concerned Scientists accusation that the Bush administration plays fast and loose with science, Easterbrook comments that the UCS is playing politics with science as well.
But beyond the truism that scientists take political views as much as the next guy, I don't really know his point. Certainly, Easterbrook--not a scientist--doesn't refute the UCS's claims. I think, rather, that he simply doesn't want partisans to cite the UCS as a neutral, purely science minded group. Well and good. Here's a graph:

The Union of Concerned Scientists report is a mix of serious charges and trivia. The serious charges include: the White House ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to remove from a document language that gave credence to global warming theory; trying to hinder research on the severity of mercury exposure; and appointing to some advisory boards only people who were likely to take an industry-oriented view on issues such as toxicology.

These are important criticisms of the White House. But do they represent "misuse" of science, or only policy disputes? The Clinton administration, after all, sometimes issued global warming warnings that were stronger than science could support and appointed to advisory boards people who were likely to take an anti-industry view.
...
Twenty Nobel Prize winners for science signed the UCS report. Signatories (not necessarily Nobel laureates) include such universally admired science figures as biologist David Baltimore, president of Caltech, public health researcher Eric Chivian and biologist E.O. Wilson of Harvard University, physicist Steven Weinberg, and former National Institutes of Health head Harold Varmus. Signatories also include two of the most political figures on the American scientific left, Jane Lubchenco of Oregon State University and Stuart Pimm of Duke University. Both are renowned for shouting down anyone who doesn't take a purely politically correct view on every environmental issue.

But, of course, nor should the fact that these scientist take on political views be used to discredit their position.
So- I reckon Easterbrook is reminding us that people take sides. I'll buy that.