[BostonCard]

The President and his administration absolutely has the right to establish broad priorities and principles.  One President might, for example, might feel strongly that gun violence is an epidemic and that the CDC ought to devote a lot of resources to combating it.  Another might feel that gun violence is not a CDC issue and would want the CDC to focus on the opioid epidemic, while a third might feel that the CDC should be focused on infectious diseases.  That's fine.

I don't think it is merely a difference of degree to attempt to influence the scientific content of CDC recommendations, however.

BC

BC, I think your example clearly shows how they are the same thing. You can bet if the president feels that gun violence is not a CDC issue there won't be any advisories regarding gun violence coming out from the CDC. It may be that scientifically gun violence is a major cause of death, but if the president doesn't want to hear that, he appoints people that make sure he doesn't. If you work for the CDC and think gun violence should be an issue and an advisory should be issued you have two choices, stay in your lane or quit.

Much of the "influencing" normally goes on behind the scenes, and we don't see it or hear about it. A guidance is issued and everyone stands behind it. It was actually vetted by the president's staff, but we don't know that. In a well-oiled federal bureaucracy, everyone stays on message. Naturally, that is easier to do if the message is clearly articulated and consistent. It doesn't have to be "scientifically correct". The current president is just so bad a manager he can't pull that off, and we get a guidance that has to be revised in public, not private.

I believe there is a difference between broad priority-setting, which is an inherently political endeavor, and indeed very well could be a candidate's campaign position (see, for example, Elizabeth Warren's plan: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/combat...t-20200128).  It is quite another to overrule the science due to political constraints.

If you are a CDC scientist, and your boss tells you, "the new administration is really concerned about the opioid epidemic and wants us to devote more resources to reviewing the science of what is the best way to combat the opioid epidemic", that's a totally fair priority setting exercise.  On the other hand, having delved into the science and written the draft report, it is quite another for your boss to say, "The White House doesn't want to fund more treatment centers for addiction; they want you to change your report to highlight the role of law enforcement", then that is not a question of priorities, that is a question of trying to dictate the science, and I do think it crosses a line.

BC

[BostonCard]

The President and his administration absolutely has the right to establish broad priorities and principles.  One President might, for example, might feel strongly that gun violence is an epidemic and that the CDC ought to devote a lot of resources to combating it.  Another might feel that gun violence is not a CDC issue and would want the CDC to focus on the opioid epidemic, while a third might feel that the CDC should be focused on infectious diseases.  That's fine.

I don't think it is merely a difference of degree to attempt to influence the scientific content of CDC recommendations, however.

BC

BC, I think your example clearly shows how they are the same thing. You can bet if the president feels that gun violence is not a CDC issue there won't be any advisories regarding gun violence coming out from the CDC. It may be that scientifically gun violence is a major cause of death, but if the president doesn't want to hear that, he appoints people that make sure he doesn't. If you work for the CDC and think gun violence should be an issue and an advisory should be issued you have two choices, stay in your lane or quit.

Much of the "influencing" normally goes on behind the scenes, and we don't see it or hear about it. A guidance is issued and everyone stands behind it. It was actually vetted by the president's staff, but we don't know that. In a well-oiled federal bureaucracy, everyone stays on message. Naturally, that is easier to do if the message is clearly articulated and consistent. It doesn't have to be "scientifically correct". The current president is just so bad a manager he can't pull that off, and we get a guidance that has to be revised in public, not private.

I believe there is a difference between broad priority-setting, which is an inherently political endeavor, and indeed very well could be a candidate's campaign position (see, for example, Elizabeth Warren's plan: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/combat...t-20200128).  It is quite another to overrule the science due to political constraints.

If you are a CDC scientist, and your boss tells you, "the new administration is really concerned about the opioid epidemic and wants us to devote more resources to reviewing the science of what is the best way to combat the opioid epidemic", that's a totally fair priority setting exercise.  On the other hand, having delved into the science and written the draft report, it is quite another for your boss to say, "The White House doesn't want to fund more treatment centers for addiction; they want you to change your report to highlight the role of law enforcement", then that is not a question of priorities, that is a question of trying to dictate the science, and I do think it crosses a line.

BC