It's not just the little people museums that are feeling threatened by the totalitarian tendencies of the current Administration.
No less an institution than the Smithsonian has apparently taken a dive to avoid unwelcome scrutiny from the anti-science know-nothings that currently rule DC: According to a breaking story from the AP, a former Smithsonian administrator is claiming that it "toned down an exhibit on climate change in the Arctic, for fear of angering Congress and the Bush administration."
Robert Sullivan, former associate director at the Museum of Natural History, a prominent branch of the Smithsonian, resigned last fall rather than accept a reassignment.
Now the 16-year veteran levels this dismaying charge against the nation's premier museum's current timidity about pushing actual science:
"It just became tooth-pulling to get solid science out without toning it down."
In the AP article, Sullivan reveals this about last year's show, "Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely":
Among other things, the script, or official text ... was rewritten to minimize and inject more uncertainty into the relationship between global warming and humans.
[snip]
Also, officials omitted scientists' interpretation of some research and let visitors draw their own conclusions from the data, he said. In addition, graphs were altered "to show that global warming could go either way," Sullivan said.
This is absurd.
But here's the most chilling part of this, IMO: The Bush Administration has everyone so cowed from 6 years of bullying that they don't even need to apply direct pressure to get their desired results.
Sullivan said that to his knowledge, no one in the Bush administration pressured the Smithsonian, whose $1.1 billion budget is mostly taxpayer-funded.
Rather, he said, Smithsonian leaders acted on their own. "The obsession with getting the next allocation and appropriation was so intense that anything that might upset the Congress or the White House was being looked at very carefully," he said.
The message is out: Promote the scientific basis of global warming and you'll get a serious slap.
Of course, the Smithsonian had felt the backside of the Administration's hand before:
Amid the oil-drilling debate in 2003, a photo exhibit of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was moved to a less prominent space.
From the current Smithsonian leaders, and the Administration, come these convenient dodges:
Randall Kremer, a spokesman for the natural history museum, said atmospheric science was outside the Smithsonian's expertise, so the museum avoided the issue of what is causing the Arctic changes.
[snip]
Some curators and scientists involved in the project said they believed nothing important was omitted. But they also said it was apparent that science was not the only concern.
[snip]
Smithsonian officials denied that political concerns influenced the exhibit, saying the changes were made for reasons of objectivity. And some scientists who consulted on the project said nothing major was omitted.
"Atmospheric science" is not in their area of expertise. "Objectivity" requires removing scientific conclusions. And the facts on the ground ice slush are "nothing major." Right.