CommentsGELFAND’S WORLD--It came out this week that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has been instructed not to use certain words in its budget documents. According to the press reports, this instruction came down from the Trump administration. At least one of the terms is "science-based." Another forbidden term is "evidence-based."
On the face of it, this comes across as downright scary -- an escalation in the right wing war on science. It is reminiscent of Orwell's invention in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the agency known as the Ministry of Truth. This is of course a ministry that churns out propaganda and lies. Our modern term for Orwell's Ministry of Truth is the White House Office of the Press Secretary. It would appear that some of the White House approach to shading the truth is being passed down to a department that is charged with protecting the public health.
It does seem scary, doesn't it? However, there may be a different way of looking at things.
Might I suggest that this latest outrage represents somebody in the Trump group having a little sadistic fun with us? Yes, there is a later part of the story that is a little more ominous, but simply crossing out certain terms that have readily available synonyms is merely to be obnoxious. It's a little different than pretending that global warming doesn't exist.
Here is the list of forbidden terms:
vulnerable
entitlement
diversity
transgender
fetus
evidence-based
science-based
The list seems to separate into three categories. The top four items would appear to refer to categories that offend the conservative sensibility. Evidently it is anathema even to mention the existence of certain conditions such as being vulnerable or being entitled to something. Diversity and transgender also fall into the category of conditions that rich, white, heteronormative males don't want to hear about.
The next category of "Evidence based" and "science based" represents, I would guess, terms that involve political danger when the facts get in the way of some wing-nut delusion. The merit of using the anti-HPV vaccine or the dangers posed by firearms are among the facts that some of the crazies oppose.
As for the word fetus, your guess is probably better than mine. Perhaps the anti-abortionists prefer some more emotionally charged term such as unborn child, but for what the CDC does, the term is important, particularly if you want to talk about something like the effects of the Zika virus. The word fetus also refers to non-human development -- for example in experimental rats and mice. Any legitimate evaluation of a disease or an experimental drug should include an evaluation of its effects on fetal development. That's the thalidomide story in a nutshell. We would also want to evaluate the effects on fetal development of the new vaccines against the Ebola virus that are in the pipeline.
In all these cases, the word fetus is a legitimate scientific term in the same sense that ventricle or mitochondrion are accepted terms. It need not refer merely to humans, and in the case of humans it has a legitimate place in medicine and science.
What's peculiar about this list is how it jumps all over the place, from the merely sociological to the definably physical. Donald Trump may resent the existence of transgender people in his army, but it is a definable physical state. Curiously, the word vulnerable is profitably used in a number of different ways, ranging from the medical ("vulnerable to infection") to the mental. The word is used in specific federal regulations regarding the use of human subjects in experimentation. For example, the word is used by the FDA in regulations regarding the choice of human test subjects and their ability to consent to joining a study.
In essence, when you look at the CDC gag order in its entirety, it looks like it was put together by people who had no idea what they were talking about. Since the forbidden terms are replaceable with other words, it would also appear that this latest Trumpian move isn't really serious.
What is it then? I would suggest that it is just a diversion in a month full of truly damaging actions. In this month alone, the administration has attacked net neutrality and has pushed a tax bill that rewards the hugely wealthy at the expense of the public good. The CDC gag order is just one more wound for us to bandage. By tossing out little firecrackers like the gag order alongside the real grenades such as the tax bill, this administration tries to exhaust its opponents and attempts to force us to divide our time and efforts.
For this reason, we should make mockery of the CDC gag order, but we shouldn't waste a lot of energy in fighting it. It is an attempt on the part of the administration to sap our strength and perhaps just have a little fun at our expense. It is sadistic and stupid, but that's their way.
One policy switch of possible concern
There is one element in the CDC gag order that is a little concerning. In its public statement, the CDC made the following remark:
"CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes." (see the Washington Post story by Lena Sun and Juliet Eilperin linked above).
Now what could this mean? Presumably that part about community standards refers to right wing sensibilities about reproductive freedom. What is concerning is the attempt to mix right wing social conservatism with the results of scientific studies. It's a little weird in a way. Remember when the conservatives used to lambast liberals for the sin of moral relativism? Now, we have the right wing defending a sort of scientific relativism. To the right wing mentality, if they don't like the finding (for example: global warming is real) then they claim that it can't be true. In the case of the medical sciences, we have an unholy alliance of anti-vaccination types and social conservatives attacking the Gardasil vaccine on spurious grounds.
The CDC is charged with protecting public health -- everything from cervical cancer to Ebola disease. Let's hope that CDC scientists and administrators will maintain a high level of professionalism in spite of the anti-science attacks coming from the right wing. In the meanwhile, some of their budget writers will have to find ways to describe what they want without using those seven terms you aren't allowed to type.
Trump Fatigue
It's been a year since the 2016 election and nearly a year of the Trump presidency. For the sane and merciful amongst us, it's been a long slog through some very thick mud. This is the moment that we have to remind ourselves that the fight is just starting. We have a right to hope that we can achieve some gains in the 2018 congressional elections. In the meanwhile, we can expect that Trump and his appointees will continue to attack us on all fronts. Every week provides a new set of stresses. On one day, Trump attempted to remove protections from public lands that had previously been parts of national monuments. On another day we heard about the CDC gag order. On almost the same day, we were confronted with the FCC action to reverse internet neutrality.
In previous presidencies, it was uncommon to face such difficulties even on a yearly basis. Trump tosses out the Twitter attacks and the seemingly-insane presidential directives on a weekly -- sometimes daily -- basis.
It's been a fight, and it's not going to get better for a while. But the American people are not neutral to what is going on. The Republicans in the House of Representatives continue to do their worst, but their legislative carnage can't continue indefinitely considering that Trump is seriously disliked by about two-thirds of the American people. Even worse for the Republican Party, Speaker Ryan is no friend to Social Security or Medicare. Even Republicans respond to threats to these programs. The Democrats will do their best to tell the American people that the new tax bill damages Medicare. They will fill the airwaves with concerns about Republican threats to Social Security. You know the old saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. It will be interesting (and critical to our future) whether these old Democratic Party weapons will once again be effective.
(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
-cw
