January 27, 1999

Is it real science? New book finds it's often manipulated for political ends
Official science, consensus science, junk science all just appear to be science

"As our world approaches the 21st century, forces more familiar to the Dark Ages than to the Computer Age are colluding to stifle science," according to the authors of a new book published today by the Cato Institute. "We are slipping into a new form of darkness: one where it's popular, profitable, and politically expedient to suppress science," the book declares.

In Silencing Science, authors Steven Milloy and Michael Gough use a satirical approach, offering readers a "how-to" guide to silencing science. Tips from the authors, with supporting material drawn from real-life cases, cover such areas as banning science education, regulating science out of existence, putting the squeeze on federal or private funds, using intimidation and harassment, seizing researchers' tools, blackmail, playing the lawsuit card, using "the Oliver North Method" (obliterating the evidence), hiding data (refusing to share the data for others to review it), discrediting viewpoints and using the media to spread misinformation.

For example, since the federal government provides about half the funding for scientific research in this country, it's become easy for national politicians and bureaucrats to silence politically incorrect science. "Money is to scientific research as electricity is to a light bulb. Turn the money on and light the lamp of knowledge. Turn off the juice, and we're back in the dark."

Once groups pursuing a political agenda have successfully silenced science, they proceed to "fill the void" they've created. One popular technique for doing that, Gough and Milloy note, is to use "junk science," defined as "exaggerated or overinterpreted science used to advance some predetermined, often politically correct, politically desired, or financially lucrative conclusion." The authors add, "In the best light, junk science is poor science; in the worst light, it is fraud."

In the end, the authors remind people who would silence science that, despite all the methods described in the book, "you can't simply tie science to the train tracks and walk away. Science is even more resourceful than Batman. And science has a major ally. The American public still likes science and has high hopes for it."

Silencing Science


January 25, 1999

Cato Institute to 106th Congress: Restore limited role of the federal government
New Handbook highlights Social Security, fundamental tax reform and corporate welfare

"For those who go into government to improve the lives of their fellow citizens, the hardest lesson to accept may be that often there is no good reason for Congress to do anything about a problem-such as education, crime, or church burning," the Cato Institute reminds legislators in a new book published today. The new edition of the Cato Handbook for Congress covers a broad spectrum of public policy issues, from urgent action items such as Social Security privatization, tax reform and corporate welfare to term limits, strengthening civil liberties, abolishing federal agencies, regulatory reform and deregulation.

Noting that "the nature of government is to grow," Cato reminds members of the 106th Congress that while "the Constitution of the United States is the best device ever created for limiting government," over the years "we have let the federal government exceed the bounds that the Founders wisely placed on it." Among the policy highlights in the new Handbook:

  • Social Security Privatization - Congress should allow workers to redirect their payroll taxes to individually owned, privately invested retirement accounts. Privatization will provide a better deal for young workers, promote savings and economic growth, help the poor and provide freedom of choice and control.

  • Fundamental Tax Reform - Congress should provide tax relief to millions by cutting taxes at least $1 trillion over five years. Overhaul of the tax code should include the repeal of the 1990 and 1993 tax increases, a cut in the payroll tax rate and the abolition of both the capital gains and the estate tax. In addition, Congress should replace the income tax with a national sales tax.

  • Eliminate Corporate Welfare - Congress should eliminate the 100-plus government spending programs that "provide unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries," saving taxpayers $300 billion over five years.

  • End Restrictions on Political Speech - Congress should deregulate the campaign finance system, reject "voluntary" spending limits and reject calls to eliminate political action committees.

Purchase paper edition of Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 106th Congress. Read online PDF version.


January 15, 1999

Limited benefits of nuclear test ban treaty not worth high cost to U.S. security
Senate should reject treaty and fund resumption of limited testing, study says

The proposed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has limited political benefits and is "not worth the high cost to U.S. national security," according to a new study released today by the Cato Institute. The treaty was signed by President Clinton in September 1996 and will be considered this year by the Senate. It would ban all nuclear weapons explosive testing.

In "The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: The Costs Outweigh the Benefits," author and defense analyst Kathleen C. Bailey argues that the treaty is unenforceable, unverifiable and unwise policy, and that it should be rejected by the U.S. Senate.

Weapons testing is essential to the national security, according to Bailey, because "evolution in technologies for safety, nuclear delivery systems, and enemy defenses may render the now-modern U.S. nuclear arsenal technologically obsolete or less safe." She says that the Clinton administration's plan to try to "fix problems and design new weapons without nuclear testing" under a Stockpile Stewardship Program would be "extremely expensive and technologically very risky."

Bailey argues that "constraining weapons modernization is risky because it seriously degrades the ability of the United States to tailor or update its arsenal to emerging or as yet unknown threats or to adapt it to changes in other nations' defensive technologies." The treaty would also prevent the United States from pursuing "another emerging mission for which nuclear warheads might be the most effective weapon, destroying chemical and biological agents." Such agents would probably not be destroyed by conventional weapons, but "even the hardiest agents such as anthrax would be destroyed by the high heat generated by a nuclear explosion."

The paper notes that, "at present, the United States is two years or more away from being able to conduct a nuclear test. This lack of readiness will inevitably worsen as skilled experts retire and die, equipment ages or becomes obsolete, and financial support erodes."

Bailey believes that, "from a purely technical standpoint, it would be most prudent for the U.S. Senate to reject the CTBT and to allocate funds for resumption of U.S. testing and for reconstruction of the U.S. nuclear weapons production infrastructure." But she notes as well that "it may be politically desirable to undertake some limitations on testing."

Policy analysis no. 330


Cato Institute News Releases:



© 1999 The Cato Institute