In a much anticipated move, President Obama yesterday rolled back Bush Administration policies governing the funding of stem cell research (discussed by Ryan yesterday). Liberals applauded and conservatives frowned. In an excellent article, Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times characterizes the move accurately:

President Obama’s directive on Monday to “guarantee scientific integrity” in federal policy making could have a far-reaching impact, affecting issues as varied as climate change, national security, protection of endangered species and children’s health.

But it will not divorce science from politics, or strip ideology from presidential decisions.

This perspective is absolutely correct, and is actually consistent with what the Obama Administration has done, as noted by Ryan yesterday. Yet some dissonance remains in how many scientists view the action. For instance, in Stolberg’s article, Alan Leshner of AAAS is reported to have these incoherent views:

“We’re not dumb — we know that policy is made on the basis of facts and values,” said Alan I. Lesher, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse under President Bill Clinton and, briefly, Mr. Bush.

But by asserting “the centrality of science to every issue of modern life,” Dr. Lesher said, Mr. Obama is suggesting that science rather than ideology will be the foundation for his decision making. “What you are seeing now is both a response to the last eight years, and a genuine reaction to President Obama’s enthusiasm for science,” he said.

Ideology, I suppose, is something that those other guys have. These sentiments, and those reported yesterday by Ryan, are incoherent.

With Obama calling for guidance on science in politics from his science advisor John Holdren within the next 120 days, the subject is sure to reemerge. How the Obama Administration deals with this issue will be interesting to see.