←back to thread

CDC gets list of forbidden words

(www.washingtonpost.com)
382 points js2 | 4 comments | 16 Dec 17 02:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.22s | source
Show context
beebmam ◴[16 Dec 17 03:41 UTC] No.15937380[source]▶
Censoring the CDC, of all organizations. What a travesty. The entire world looks to the US CDC for guidelines.

Let's be clear: The political right in the US pretends to care about free speech until they get serious political power.

It wasn't too long ago that conservatives were strongly against the depiction of violence and sex in video games.

replies(6): >>15937508 #>>15937563 #>>15937686 #>>15937974 #>>15938149 #>>15938516 #
evan_ ◴[16 Dec 17 04:31 UTC] No.15937686[source]▶
> Censoring the CDC, of all organizations.

This isn't the first time it's happened. The Dickey Amendment in 1996 forced the CDC to stop research on gun-related injuries because the NRA was upset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

replies(2): >>15937708 #>>15937827 #
1. thrden ◴[16 Dec 17 05:06 UTC] No.15937827[source]▶
Interestingly that seems to be a result of the CDC's own political leanings. They seemed to pursue the research with an explicit political goal, rather than research the effects of gun violence, and then find a goal[1]. Further, the Dickey amendment doesn't actually force the CDC to avoid researching the issue but rather preventing it from using federal money . to promote gun control:

"none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control"[2]

[1]https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-tr... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

replies(3): >>15938169 #>>15938186 #>>15938245 #
2. grigjd3 ◴[16 Dec 17 06:40 UTC] No.15938169[source]▶
If you don't understand that barring a conclusion from receiving federal funding is effectively barring the research itself, then you don't understand academic research. Even if you legitimately don't find gun control to be a solution from your research, that you would lose your funding if you did means there is necessarily a financial incentive with no basis in fact to have or not have certain results - invalidating the research. The actual effect is that it bars research into gun violence, even if that is not the letter of the law.
3. jogjayr ◴[16 Dec 17 06:44 UTC] No.15938186[source]▶
What if it turns out that research suggests gun control is effective in reducing gun violence? Note, I'm not saying that it is effective; I have no dog in this fight and don't know enough. But the law effectively says to the CDC "You're allowed to research this health issue, but if you come to a conclusion that's politically unacceptable, you can't share it."

The result is that the CDC now believes any gun violence research to be likely to result in political reprisal against them come budget time.[1]

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...

4. djur ◴[16 Dec 17 07:02 UTC] No.15938245[source]▶
[1] is an unsourced op-ed by a representative of the NRA's lobbying arm, who advocated for the amendment in the first place. Here's an opposing view:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as...