NIH Director Regrets Taxpayer-Funded Hatchet Job Linking Tea Party to Big Tobacco

UCSFUCSFAt a congressional hearing on Tuesday, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said he was "quite troubled" by a taxpayer-funded study that tarred the Tea Party movement as a pawn of Big Tobacco. Collins called the study, led by anti-smoking activist Stanton Glantz, "an unfortunate outcome," saying, "We thought we were funding a different kind of research when those grants were awarded." Science Insider reports that Collins was responding to concerns raised by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) at a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee:

"They allege that somehow the Tea Party had its origin in the 1980s with tobacco funding, which is pretty incredible," Harris said. "Because I mean, I'm a Tea Party guy. I was there when it was established in 2009. I know the origins. I find it incredible that NIH funding is funding this," Harris said, adding that the study reflects "a partisan political agenda."

When the study was published in the journal Tobacco Control last month, one of Glantz's co-authors declared, "The records indicate that the Tea Party has been shaped by the tobacco industry and is not a spontaneous grassroots movement at all." As I noted at the time, Glantz et al. tried to make the case that the Tea Party was funded and largely created by Philip Morris but ended up arguing that anyone who disagrees with them on issues such as ObamaCare, smoking bans, and cigarette taxes is carrying water for Big Tobacco, even if he does not realize it. 

Glantz told Science Insider he was "very troubled" by Collins' comments. After all, when Glantz said in his grant proposal that he planned to study the influence of "third parties" funded by cigarette manufacturers, the NIH should have realized that included political hatchet jobs aimed at discrediting supporters of limited government as shills or dupes of Big Tobacco. It's not his fault that the people he attacked happen to be critics of the current president, which makes it look like the Obama administration is using taxpayer money to pay for opposition research.

[Thanks to Christopher Snowdon for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • califernian||

    you had me at "anti-smoking activist"

  • Brewlady||

    He knows that many nicotine-containing products have less than 10% of the risk of cigarettes but won’t acknowledge tobacco harm reduction. Scientific tests prove that products like lozenges, Swedish snus and electronic cigarettes have the potential to drastically change how adults use nicotine. These products don't fit into his imaginary nicotine-free world so he ignores them. He has admitted this on his blog! Truth be damned. When I learned that he was using MY money to fight my health, I was furious. When I smoked it was NOT his business. Now that I'm using a safer alternative he scares me. If he had his way, the only way I could use nicotine would be to go back to my old pack-a-day habit. I've been smoke-free for over 2 1/2 years, and I will be damned if this nanny liar prevents me from using a safer alternative. There is no word that could come close to adequately describing how much I loathe him. Someone needs to stop this miserable, meddling excuse for a rocket scientist from harming even more smokers than he already has.

    Dr. Michael Siegel has written about Stan on his blog and so has Dr. Carl Phillips.

    http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspo.....re-it.html

    http://antithrlies.com/?s=Glantz

    These comments are solely mine, I am not writing as a representative of any group of which I am a board member. :)

  • sloopyinca||

    Collins called the study, led by anti-smoking activist Stanton Glantz, "an unfortunate outcome," saying, "We thought we were funding a different kind of research when those grants were awarded."

    By "different" do you mean "real"?

    Fuck these partisan thugs.

  • SIV||

    Fuck government funded "research" for anything not specifically mandated by a limited and literal reading of the Constitution.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The funny thing is that he's inadvertently admitting that the 'study' should have had a predetermined outcome, that it's not a study at all but some type of propaganda.

  • Sevo||

    "Collins called the study, led by anti-smoking activist Stanton Glantz, "an unfortunate outcome," saying, "We thought we were funding a different kind of research when those grants were awarded.""

    Not to worry. This is a government-funded "study"; it's simply not possible that there is any bias.
    (disclosure: I do not smoke)

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and that photo of Glantz?
    Someone should shove 25 rum-soaked cigars in his mouth and light 'em.

  • John Galt||

    How about save the cigars for someone who will enjoy them and ram a stick of dynamite into his blow-hole instead.

  • Sevo||

    Better suggestion.

  • ||

    So let me get this straight: taxpayer money is used to fund a study that smears opposition to the current regime while at the same time said regime is selling access to pay for an astroturf campaign for gun control and higher taxes?

    I can't imagine in their wildest dreams anyone in the Bush administration being able to pull such a thing off.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    You spelled his name wrong. It's spelled Statist Glans.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Statist Mons?

  • Jordan||

    I can't imagine why anyone would distrust government-funded science. Nope, not at all.

  • ||

    Only conservatives who hate facts and reality would ever question a scientific study!

    God nothing pisses me off more about retarded progressives than we they get all smug about being the 'reality based' party when all they got are bullshit studies like these to back up their idiotic claims.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Big difference between Conservatives and Liberals: the latter can bullshit. Conservatives go with their gut feelings, shoot from the hip, and don't usually hide it, so they fail at deceiving people. Liberals go with their gut but can back up their lies with audacity and 'facts'. These are the 'facts' Liberals are so sure of and usually just aren't true.

  • GILMORE||

    austerity has failed

    guns cause crime

    government helps the poor

    the federal government creates jobs

    corporations pay no taxes

    and libertarians are all pawns of evil billionaires

    everyone knows this

    (polishes monocle)

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    "It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

    I think Ronnie summed it up pretty nicely there.

  • ||

    Ah, but it shouldn't piss you off. Because they're retarded. And they don't even realize how stupid they are. I'd pity them if they weren't so dangerous. Well, no, I probably wouldn't. Because they actively enable their own stupidity.

    Never, ever argue with partisans, and this especially applies to TEAM BLUE. You are wasting your time, because you are arguing with someone who thinks they are right no matter what facts there are, and they think this is scientific and unassailable. How can you argue with stupidity of that magnitude, of that glorious density?

    Ridicule them or ignore them. Never engage them.

  • ||

    Well it just frustrates me in the sense that it can feel overwhelming to be surrounded by complete morons.

  • ||

    Well, you'll learn over time to avoid complete morons more and more in, at the very least, your private life and to a certain extent in your professional life.

  • ||

    There's a lot of modernist and postmodernist literature addressing themes of alienation. Use it!

  • ||

    I recall feeling a strange affinity for Mersault in Camus' The Stranger.

    But I've always preferred the Transcendentalists like Whitman, Emerson, and Thoreau. They largely influenced my development into a libertarian.

  • ||

    Though Melville is often not read this way, he's extremely occupied with themes of individualism (and alienation) and follows in the tradition you like. I'm, uh, a fan.

  • ||

    Bartleby the Scrivener is one of my all-time favorite short stories for that reason.

    I would prefer not to.

  • elfprince13||

    Props to you good sir. The libertarian movement good do with a good deal more Henry David Thoreau and a good deal less Ayn Rand.

  • Killazontherun||

    When I read the comments on a huffpo piece earlier today, I noticed an odd phenomenon. There was a tendency of the Team Blue types to treat every thing as an affirmitive victory. Obama nominates Brennen a man neck deep in Bush's torture policy, and it goes through after the filibuster. Victory! Republicans divided and fighting amongst each other; however, your side stays united because so few of you possesses anything that remotely resembles a conscience. Victory!

  • Killazontherun||

    Oh, and more than a few pats patting themselves on the back for being stern reality based pragmatist for accepting Brennen as the most qualified for the job. Those who didn't vote for him were just being ideologues.

  • ||

    This victory thing is a feature of their cognitive dissonance. If they don't do this then they have to accept that they are being fucked and used and that daddy Obama isn't perfect and they just cannot handle that. They've become propagandizers of their own minds. It's incredibly creepy.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I generally throw Aristotelian logic at them and watch them squirm and wait fo r them to say "THERE IS NO TRUTH!"

  • GILMORE||

    well at least now i can demand 3 decades of back-pay from philip morris for my limited-government advocacy effots

    but seriously.... on a theme ive often raised - how i can sometimes be unsure whether liberals are simply irrational morons, or caculating disingenuous power hungry scum = in this case it is clear. They are pathetic propagandizing slime who must be at least slightly aware that most people will see through their lies, but they dont care as long as it becomes the conventional wisdom of the moronic progressive mass

  • Sevo||

    "how i can sometimes be unsure whether liberals are simply irrational morons, or caculating disingenuous power hungry scum"
    Doesn't matter. Sleazy regardless.

  • ||

    well at least now i can demand 3 decades of back-pay from philip morris for my limited-government advocacy efforts

    What are you going to do with that many top hats and monocle chains?

  • GILMORE||

    no no no... it will be entirely reinvested into tobacco and gambling stocks which make all their income from killing people and fleecing the poor.

    AKA "prudent investment"

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Guns, don't forget the guns.

  • mike c.||

    It is this kind science that we lose if we stop boosting funding 5% a year.

    I heard about this on NPR a few weeks ago.

    The science is settled!

  • Oso Politico||

    Tomorrow we will see a retraction in the Huff Post...and I have a bridge to sell you...

  • ||

    OT: I missed the PM links, but here's an interesting discussion: should women in their 20s feel ashamed for wanting a boyfriend?

  • ||

    Um, wow. This is an insane train wreck. I'm going to keep reading, but wow:

    I don't mean to be unsympathetic, but I am kind of thrilled that this is considered embarrassing among smart young women.Having a boyfriend and/or being well on the way to marriage used to be the default for twentysomethings. It's fascinating that the social stigma has reversed so dramatically.

    I don't think any of these women have left NYC in a long time...

  • ||

    It seems to me that the rules of feminism encourage casual sex instead of monogamous relationships. And thus lots of women who feel pressured to 'liberate' themselves in college and post-grad end up feeling lonely in consequence.

    I'm still in college and while there is a definite hook-up culture, I still find that many girls want the traditional things associated with a relationship.

  • Calidissident||

    ASM, interesting that you posted that. Just yesterday, some of my friend commented in an FB argument where some ultra feminists (including one guy) were criticizing the hook-up culture at my school and essentially equating it with a "rape culture." While there have been rapes at my school, they essentially argued that any sex while intoxicated (even if not totally incoherent or passed out) is rape, even if the guy is equally or more drunk. It was quite ridiculous IMO, and most of the people calling them out were girls, which didn't prevent them (including the guy) from accusing people who disagreed with them of promoting a rape culture and apologizing for rape.

  • ||

    they essentially argued that any sex while intoxicated (even if not totally incoherent or passed out) is rape, even if the guy is equally or more drunk

    This is a pretty common argument and in some states it would definitely constitute rape.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    I wish I were so innocent as to be shocked by anything you just said.

  • ||

    Feminists seem to blow the topic out of proportion, but as someone who was regularly sent with groups of women to make sure they got back to their dorms ok after parties, I would say that a drunk guy is better at going after a girl sexually than an equally drunk girl is at trying to stop him. The idea that all drunk sex is rape is absurd, but it was always nice that we had someone coordinating to make sure that Sketchy Abe wasn't walking some drunk girl home.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    @jesse

    I think a big issue here is that when feminists make the absurd claim that all drunk sex is rape, they make such a mockery of the idea that there's a relationship between intoxication and consent that people are more dismissive of cases where a reasonable person would actually question the ability of one (or both, in theory) drunk partner to give consent.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Which in turn lessens what the word "rape" means.

    If you say that a woman that has some drinks with her boyfriend then has sex is experiencing the same thing as a woman raped at knife point by a strange man, you do a great disservice to the woman actually attacked, to say the least.

    In the rush to make everybody a sympathetic victim the real victims will get lost in the noise, but that's not of concern to those in the victim industry so long as they're advancing their cause.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    Yep, exactly.

  • ||

    I don't disagree, I just think that because a certain class of feminist is shouting that all drunk sex is rape, people can knee-jerk the other way and dismiss that there is an issue there at all. In my experience men who get extra creepy when they are drunk have a nose for women who get more passive and compliant while drunk.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, I'm not suggesting that rapes of drunk girls don't occur, or that some guys don't take advantage of girls making decisions when they're drunk that they otherwise wouldn't make, but that's a lot different from saying any drunk sex is rape (which is what they were saying). Ironically, I find that attitude sexist towards women, as it implies that while men can be held responsible for their actions while drunk, we can't expect the same thing from women

  • Calidissident||

    I also think that the fact that women sometimes wake up regretting their decision when drunk doesn't mean they didn't consent to the decision at the time, and the same goes for men. If drunk women can't consent, then neither can men, and in that case (and I would say that describes the majority of one night hook ups at my school) I don't see how you can charge anyone with rape. One of the feminists admitted that she thought that neither gender could consent when drunk, but that men should still be charged with rape

  • Coeus||

    One of the feminists admitted that she thought that neither gender could consent when drunk, but that men should still be charged with rape

    If you press them enough, you'll find that a common opinion.

  • sloopyinca||

    Asking them about their views on rape is akin to asking a mongoloid their views on quantum mechanics.

    Either way, you're wasting your time.

  • Calidissident||

    Isn't mongoloid just a (not commonly used) scientific term for Asian people?

  • sloopyinca||

    It's no longer acceptable. The meaning has literally changed.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Does it effect what you can see? Can't you still wear a hat, have a job, and bring home the bacon?

  • ||

    The problem I have with such women is that they become caricatures of what I feel is a legitimate topic of concern. Men who knowingly take advantage of an intoxicated woman are scum.

    But what is often the case is that both parties are horny and looking to bone and alcohol simply lowers the inhibitions. I don't think that should be illegal or even stigmatized.

  • ||

    they essentially argued that any sex while intoxicated (even if not totally incoherent or passed out) is rape, even if the guy is equally or more drunk.

    I seriously feel sorry for people your age. I would be unable to tolerate that amount of stupid. Don't know how you can be around it.

  • sloopyinca||

    FdA, I seriously doubt that kind of stupid is very prevalent, even with the younger set. Those people usually grow up, get a real job and look back at how silly they were.

    Oh, Jesus Christ. They don't, do they?

  • ||

    When I went to school, we went out, we got drunk and we fucked. It was fun. Sometimes you fucked someone you wouldn't have if you were sober. God knows I've had sex with some rather large or less than beautiful women when inebriated...and it was still fun, despite the buyer's remorse. I certainly wasn't raped.

    Why do these assholes insist on requiring a victim? Why do they need to take the time of their lives and turn it into a crime? They are despicable human beings without souls.

  • ||

    They are going out of their way to make themselves unhappy. They make catholic guilt look like a walk in the park.

  • ||

    Yes. This is a feature of these women, it's a feature of the people who obsess over the morality of their food, or the morality of how their clothes were made, etc.

    They're the modern equivalent of the person whipping themselves with stinging nettles to "purify their flesh".

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "They're the modern equivalent of the person whipping themselves with stinging nettles to "purify their flesh"."

    Leave Warty out of this!

  • General Butt Naked||

    but I am kind of thrilled that this is considered embarrassing among smart young women.

    I guess that' the consolation prize for being alone; at least you're not embarrassed. I have a feeling they'll be using the same justification when they're the dried-up husk of a 50 year-old barfly, "I don't really want a husband, how embarrassing!"

  • ||

    Amanda Marcotte: My feeling is that it's counterproductive. I could tell if I went on a date with a guy if he just wanted a girlfriend and I was being auditioned. Those guys never got a second date. I wanted to be wanted for me, not because he had an opening for the girlfriend role. I imagine guys feel the same. It may not be rational, but that's how people are. They want to feel special

    That doesn't make any fucking sense. Is she saying she only wants to be in a relationship with guys who don't want to be in a relationship?

  • ||

    She's saying she only wants to be in a relationship with guys who want to be in a relationship with HER SPECIFICALLY.

  • General Butt Naked||

    She's Groucho Marx in drag.

  • Irish||

    I forget who posted this, but there was once a genius H&R post that went a little something like this:

    "Be honest. Who among us hasn't fantasized about the gentle, sweet caress of Amanda Marcotte's lipless beak?" - Anonymous

    Whoever posted that, I will be forever grateful.

  • JW||

    No, she wants a married guy to cheat on his wife with her. Win-win and she later gets to tell the wife, just she knows who beat her.

  • Xenocles||

    Marcotte:

    I could tell if I went on a date with a guy if he just wanted a girlfriend and I was being auditioned. Those guys never got a second date. I wanted to be wanted for me, not because he had an opening for the girlfriend role.

    Ah, another person who wants to be loved for herself. What's special here is not her failure to ask if she is worth loving (a good question for all, with a potential for lots of self-improvement) but her disdain for the opportunity to show what "herself" is and allow the other person to see if that's right for him.

  • ||

    I think she's just trying to shoehorn in the concept of gender roles where it's unnecessary. There's a difference between going on a date with someone who's interested in finding the right person to date, and someone who's trying to find a person to date.

  • Xenocles||

    But what does she think an audition is if not a means of finding the right person?

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    Some people -- especially women, AFAICT -- construe dating as an activity with a broader social applicability than just finding a partner.

    I personally find this quite perplexing and a tiny bit frustrating, but it is what it is.

  • JW||

    You're correct to be perplexed about the auditioning part, because that's exactly what a date is designed to do.

    If Marcotte had any shame and self-awareness, she'd have a permanent divot in her forehead, from heel of her hand constantly smacking into it.

  • ||

    Fair point. I read it and interpreted it through the lens of my experience, which is going on a date with a guy and immediately sensing that he felt the need to be in a relationship and me feeling like a security blanket. For some people you just have to prove that you're not a wart-covered troglodyte for them to decide that it's relationship time, not that there's any real compatibility.

  • Xenocles||

    Perhaps. My dating experience is extremely limited, but I could imagine something like that. I guess I could see Marcotte's text going either way now.

  • ||

  • ||

    A lone voice of sanity:

    Alyssa Rosenberg: What strikes me as weird about this conversation, and why this shift in priorities doesn't seem like a complete feminist victory, is that it discounts the idea that a relationship can be an incredible source of support for career and life goals. Having someone who, say, helps with chores to give you more time to study or work, or who encourages you when you're discouraged, or works in a similar field and helps you with ideas, who backs you publicly, etc? All this stuff can make it much easier to work harder and in a more productive way or to work through difficult challenges. I'm not sure we should get psyched by the idea that young women don't want relationships but rather by the idea that women want more from their relationships or that we view relationships as part of a larger matrix of things that can work well together.

    Jennifer Lai: It seems that twentysomethings feel that relationships take more away (are more work, energy, time, etc.) than they give ...

    Alyssa Rosenberg: Right, but what I'm interested in is the question of why people believe that? And whether that attitude is an interim step toward rethinking what it is we get out of relationships?

    Due to character count will reserve my own comments for separate post...

  • ||

    So, I know women in the relevant age group on both sides of this fence. I know one particularly well who started out on the "no relationship" side and is now in one, but she felt this stigma, or whatever you want to call it, so strongly that it took her nearly a year to admit that the guy she was seeing exclusively was her "boyfriend."

    A lot of the specifics the women in the discussion are talking about seem to have less to do with feminism per se and more to do with things being taught to people of both genders: go to school for longer, focus on yourself, take care of your career, do all of the things you want to do before you settle down with someone, because doing that will tie you down. Some of that advice is good, to an extent, but it definitely seems to leave some people feeling like a relationship is such a soul-crushing anchor that you can't do it and also have a life. Of course, some people would feel that way regardless.

    It also seems like the people who think having a boyfriend is a lot of work are thinking more about "dating" and less about a "relationship." It's not like there isn't work of a kind involved in being in a relationship, but if it's a good one, I think Rosenberg is right on in how helpful it can be in all sorts of other ways for your life.

    I mean, it's mostly absurd. It's like if someone said that having friends was bad because you can't have a life also.

  • Irish||

    Is it just me, or does this entire conversation seem totally contrary to the stated goal of feminism: Equality.

    Equality, as I understand it, means that everyone should have the same rights. But all modern feminists seem to do is try and replace the old puritanical, patriarchal beliefs of America with new puritanical, matriarchal beliefs.

    They're just crypto-fascists who want everyone to behave in a certain way, and get upset when they don't. That's the opposite of equality, since all they're doing is creating new gender roles.

  • ||

    It's not just you.

  • ||

    Think of it in terms of classic class war, but in this case, your "class" is your gender. Classic class war entails agitation against the ruling class, using the language of equality and fairness, but with the actual purpose of replacing the ruling class. So what you're seeing here is agitation using the language of equality, but with the actual objective being the upending of the traditional power structure (where men were dominant for most of history) and placing women in the dominant position.

  • Irish||

    ^ This is true of all progressive identity politics. It's all Marxist thought co-opted for racial or ethnic purposes, rather than class reasons.

  • ||

    Amanda Marcotte: I could tell if I went on a date with a guy if he just wanted a girlfriend and I was being auditioned. Those guys never got a second date.

    I've made the mistake of giving them the second date, and it ends in clingy horror. I agree with Marcotte on something. I expect the Reason hit squad to be prompt and efficient. *looks stoic while weeping on the inside*

  • ||

    She's talking about something legit but she's saying it in a confusing way (see Apatheist's reaction). There are some people who are looking to fill a "role," just like she's saying, with a warm body.

  • ||

    I've had a GF for whom I was a personalized taxi service; in exchange she was a personalized weekend escort service who provided me with the "girlfriend experience".

    It takes all kinds...

  • ||

    Shorter Marcotte: "Don't date desperate"

  • JW||

    There are some people who are looking to fill a "role," just like she's saying, with a warm body.

    That's what hookers are for.

    I haven't RTFA'd, but this entire thing is a fucking farce against any rational thinker. "I'm looking for companionship with someone that I like, share common interests and enjoy being around. Oh yeah, someone I'd like to fuck one day as well, having that sex drive and all."

    "NOW YOU SEE THE VIOLENCE IN THE PATRIARCHY!"

  • ||

    There is a fine line, to be sure, between just wanting attention and intimacy and actually caring about a specific individual. It all depends on what you're looking for.

    But I can't help but imagine that someone like Marcotte has absurd standards for what that means.

  • Irish||

    "Will he let me order him around? Will he get angry when I scream pseudofeminist non-sequitors? When I have a child and eat it, as is the way of my brood, will he object to the manner in which I wear its skin as a ritualistic hat?" - Amanda Marcotte standards

  • Marshall Gill||

    You made this up, right. Fucking scary that I am not certain.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Now that's a woman after at least nine of my hearts.

  • ||

    I guess I didn't read it that way but I mean isn't dating an audition for a relationship? I guess the first date is an audition for the 2nd date.

  • ||

    I think there's also a different way of looking at it where you're kind of like, "I go on dates to meet people." So the date is a thing in itself, just a potentially fun activity, and then if it is fun you want to repeat it.

  • General Butt Naked||

    So a way to go out and have fun, but have a man to pay for it.

    How feminist of her.

  • Coeus||

    How feminist of her.

    Yup, that's basically the definition of US feminism.

  • Irish||

    To be fair, none of us know what Marcotte does on a date...thankfully. It's possible they split the bill or sometimes she pays.

  • Coeus||

    Actually, I posted an article here awhile back where she said something along the lines of "I am totally ready to split the bill if he wants to, but I don't want to go on a second date with a guy who doesn't" followed by some bs reasoning.

  • JW||

    I think there's also a different way of looking at it where you're kind of like, "I go on dates to meet people."

    If that's the case then the person looking to meet people should be upfront and honest about her expectations for the night. Men are *always* looking to fuck, no matter the situation.

    It may be a first date and we're on our best behavior, but there's always the dim hope in our brain stem of getting laid tonight.

  • ||

    Oh, I didn't mean there wasn't going to be sex involved...just that the goal of the date is simply one fun evening.

  • JW||

    OK, then. I'll bring the Jack and pork rinds.

  • ||

    Amanda Marcotte? The gal who had "racist images" in the 1st edition of her book? The one who never apologized for her vile attacks on the Duke lacrosse players?

    Her credibility is somewhere between an used car salesman & a penny stock "investment advisor".

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I've been told that if the government won't do it, nobody will

  • Sevo||

    I'm not about to blow a $mil or so for some sleazebag to do self-promo, so whoever told you that might be on to something.

  • Killazontherun||

    Government arranged marriages are more equitable than family arranged marriages. They will account for just the right racial, gender and income balance in each to make for a more egalitarian society.

  • John Galt||

    Glantz' creepy smug face screams Progtard.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "We thought we were funding a different kind of research when those grants were awarded."

    Stop giving taxpayer money to private interests, jackoff.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "When the study was published in the journal Tobacco Control"

    Consensus says we can refer to anything we want as "journal", and that gives it scientific credibility. The science is settled!

  • OldMexican||

    Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said he was "quite troubled" by a taxpayer-funded study that tarred the Tea Party movement as a pawn of Big Tobacco.


    "I'm sorry, I didn't know it was a rock that my little precious threw at your head, but believe me, it will not happen again - I'll make sure I don't give away any more rocks!"

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    "This is déjà vu all over again," Glantz says.

    No, it's not. It's just déjà vu.

  • Mr Whipple||

    So, is this douche nozzle the reason I can't buy duty free smokes from the Native American sites anymore unless they are made by Native Americans?

  • John||

    Glantz told Science Insider he was "very troubled" by Collins' comments.

    I am sure he was, right after the media publicized it.

  • John||

    What pisses me off about this is not the politics. I really don't give a shit what this douchenozzel thinks of the Tea Party. What pisses me off is that we send billions of dollars to the NIH expecting it to work on actual public health problems and instead we get this horseshit. It is not about the politics of it. I would be just as pissed off if the money were wasted looking for Noah's Ark. It is about the fraud.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Why the fuck does there need to be both the NIH and CDC and probably others anyway? One agency that only works on contagious diseases is enough.

  • John||

    There are a lot of diseases that are not contagious. I don't have a problem with spending money on NIH for cancer and diabetes research and such. But the problem is that any organization that doesn't ruthlessly police itself of leftists, is immediately co opted and ruined.

  • Irish||

    I'd say 'police itself of leftists' is stronger language than I'm comfortable with. That sounds a bit like the way universities willfully discriminate against conservative professors.

    I'd say that you at the very least need to make sure people are running legitimate scientific research and studies, something that they don't seem to do given the unbearable amount of junk science that comes out of the Federal Government.

    Whenever a liberal tries to convince me that government science is beyond reproach, unlike that evil corporate funded science, I like to point out that government organizations are still trotting out the 'marijuana will destroy your life' lie and that the DEA released an article actually claiming that alcohol prohibition was a roaring success.

  • Gadianton||

    claiming that alcohol prohibition was a roaring success.

    Al Capone would agree with this claim -- it successfully made him rich as Midas.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Government diabeetus research leads down the path to soda bans. They should stick to contagious nasty diseases which are kind of like an enemy invasion, and maybe serious non contagious things like responding to and studying the effects of health disasters like chromium spills.

  • SIV||

    I don't have a problem with spending money on NIH for cancer and diabetes research and such.

    Spend your own damn money then. Federal government medical research should be limited to national defense concerns. Preventing soldiers from getting sick and quickly and effectively healing the sick and wounded.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I would even prefer to see as much military research as possible move to the private sector with companies pitching finished product production to the government.

  • John||

    Whatever. Spending on public health is perfectly appropriate. And even if it is not it is about one million on the list of shit the government shouldn't be doing.

    Bitching about actual NIH research is the kind of thing that causes people to think that Libertarians are fucking morons and kooks.

  • Killazontherun||

    I don't think you quite get how dispossessed from the center of American political culture generic conservatives are now. Are you forgetting the shitkicking you got right after the election with the entire media including this site predicting the death knell of the Republican party? It was an orchestrated and effective hit. You are Goldstein now, and as gauche as K-mart in name branding. If you think you are too good to be a member of the club considered to be morons and kooks (Santorum and Gingrich aren't our boys), you are deluding yourself.

  • SIV||

    Bitching about actual NIH research is the kind of thing that causes people to think that Libertarians are fucking morons and kooks.

    We never would have cured addiction without taxpayer-funding all those experiments with monkeys self-injecting cocaine.

  • SIV||

    actual NIH research has shown that teabaggers are nothing but Big Tobacco Astroturf. Everyone who opposes this government research are fucking morons and kooks

  • SIV||

    The CDC should be abolished. NIH never should have come into existence.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I just want "public health" to go back to smallpox and polio control rather than first world inconveniences like obesity and tobacco bullshit. If only all that researchin' and publishin' would be refocused on that new virus.

  • SIV||

    The government didn't have shit to do with inventing the polio vaccine. The CDC was a small bureaucracy tasked with studying mosquitoes and draining pools of stagnant water back then. It was made up largely of entomologists and engineers.

  • Coeus||

    It's not his fault that the people he attacked happen to be critics of the current president, which makes it look like the Obama administration is using taxpayer money to pay for opposition research.

    Hell Obama just decreed by executive order to do the same with the CDC.

  • SIV||

    I was hoping for a lively comment thread on why there should be a strict separation of government and "science" and what do I get?

    Discussions of "rape culture" and Amanda Marcotte.

  • General Butt Naked||

    What kind of lively debate do you want?

    "I don't think the government should be funding science."

    "Me either."

    "Wanna talk about rape culture?"

    "Sure."

  • ||

    To be fair, it didn't start out about rape culture. But basically that's what happened.

  • SIV||

    Unfortunately I found some are supportive of government science as long as "the right people are in charge"
    See a few comments above.

  • Irish||

    Fucking cosmos, huh SIV? I bet they became pro-government funded science after some hippy liberal told them about it at a D.C. cocktail party.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    I know Irish, it's fucking crazy. Some of them might even want to discuss how it should be directed given that its existence, while probably unconstitutional, is a forgone conclusion.

  • SIV||

    "how it should be directed".
    Obviously by Top.Men. with a plan!

    The discussion should be how can we have less government funding of science not

  • Irish||

    Yes, but there are also more efficient and better ways to do things. Just saying "Hey let's get rid of all government funding of science!" is great and all, but it isn't going to happen.

    "Hey maybe we should at least purge the junk science" is much more likely to occur, and is therefore the place to start. CUT EVERYTHING, CUT EVERYTHING, CUT EVERYTHING might sound good to most of the people here, but it's a topic with no real world application beyond libertarian circle jerks.

    You say that you want a conversation, but if you had your way every conversation on this site would be libertarians yelling at each other about cuts all day, every day.

  • SIV||

    Nice non sequitur for a retard, "Irish".

  • Irish||

    It's not a non sequitur at all. You get pissed off if anyone isn't sufficiently libertarian. Anyone who says something you disagree with is a cosmo or a retard, so I just took a 50/50 shot.

  • Irish||

    Also, nice quotes around my name "SIV." When you "put" quotes "randomly" around words, you must be right!

  • SIV||

    The quotes are because you are using more than one name.

  • SIV||

    Are the voices in your head calling you a "cosmotarian" again?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    It's because of something you must have done last night.

  • SumpTump||

    There is a dude that clearly knows what time it is.

    www.EliteProxy.da.bz

  • sloopyinca||

    Who is worse: Duke University basketball fans or the federal government?

    I'm just not sure anymore.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    both

  • Killazontherun||

    If I knew at the time I was going to college how unpopular Duke is with the masses, I would have found a way to have gotten in.

  • sloopyinca||

    I got accepted there in 1989. I refused to go on principle. And while I often think I may have made a mistake, my decision is reinforced every February and March.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    fool. your mission was to get rid of coach k

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh yeah, those Duke fans! What a bunch, jeeze! I tells ya!

    /some guy that has too much time on his hands

  • Cantiloper@gmail.com||

    It would be interesting to do a study to see if Stanton Glantz began this piece of research BEFORE or AFTER the Tea Party folks helped keep the California Antismokers from stealing another $800,000,000.00 per year from smokers with that vote on the $1/pack tax increase?

    How much do you think Stan's personal pocketbook and grant hopes got hit by that narrow electoral defeat? How much resentment do you think he then had toward the people who helped take that money away from him and/or his friends?

    When he got this current grant, did he have it in mind that he would use it to get revenge on his enemies? If so, was he honest in what he outlined in his grant proposal? And, if not, should he be held legally responsible for it?

    - MJM

  • harleyrider1778||

    Perhaps a nice lil study about the tobacco control movement and its direct corellation to Nazi anti-smoking laws! It had to be Hitler who started Stantons movement after all if the tobacco companies started the tea party!

  • harleyrider1778||

    Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

    One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

    http://constitutionalistnc.tri.....t/id1.html

  • elfprince13||

    Francis Collins of all people shouldn't have to put up with this crap. Only problem is he's too nice to actually throw Glantz under the bus.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'd rather my neighbors were dupes of Big Tobacco than Big Government.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "We thought we were funding a different kind of research when those grants were awarded."

    Real scientist embarrassed when he's caught giving tax money to fake scientists, apologizes...until the next time it happens.

  • Priscilla King||

    Really? I'm the Tea Party...or one of them...and I've never received any funding from the tobacco industry. Which Tea Party was Glantz's co-worker talking about?

  • harleyrider1778||

    Pricilla Glantz the mechanical engineer has no clue. This entire study was a propaganda stunt and it back fired terribly on ole stantonitis Glan as we call the lil Nazi! Those of us who have fought the anti-smoking ban wagon over the years. HHS is also Blackmailing everyone to go smokefree or buying them off with more stimulus moneys! Its illegal as hell but owebamas doing it anyway. Lobbying laws have been broken at every turn by these groups and CDC,HHS have been warned by the IG to cease and decist but they havent at all!

  • harleyrider1778||

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative to ban smoking from college campuses last month. This is part of the HHS goal to create a society free of tobacco-related disease and death, according to their action plan released by the HHS in 2010.

    Colleges who fail to enact campus-wide smoking bans and other tobacco-free policies may soon face the loss of grants and contracts from the HHS, according to the plan. Western receives grants through a subdivision of the HHS called the National Institutes of Health, Acting Vice Provost for Research Kathleen Kitto said.

    http://www.westernfrontonline......?success=1

    Obama administration to push for eliminating smoking on college campuses

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/11/obama ... z29zJ2V2TV

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement