The Bush administration has pushed science to one side, but Dr Michael Stebbins wants to bring science out of the cold and back into US politics, writes Mark Rodden.
Ask Dr Michael Stebbins how much he feels US science policy has suffered under the Bush administration and his answer is emphatic.
"Science policy wasn't just figuratively moved down the block," he says. "It was literally moved down the block from the White House, where the White House science adviser was moved out of the White House complex."
Dr Stebbins, who runs the Biosecurity Project at the Federation of American Scientists, believes science has been neglected and misrepresented under President George W Bush and restricted by politicians who have allowed their decisions to be influenced by ideological or religious factors instead of scientific advice.
His recently published book, Sex, Drugs & DNA: Science's Taboos Confronted, is a passionate critique of such trends, focusing on topics such as stem cells, sex, healthcare and science education. In Ireland to deliver the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland's annual Outreach lecture earlier this week, Dr Stebbins is similarly forthright in person about the direction US science policy has taken.
"The absolute infusion of ideology and mixing of ideology and religion - really the bastardisation of science policy by this administration . . . for most people, it's unfathomable how bad it's got," he says.
It is clear that Dr Stebbins is not the most ardent fan of a president who has cut funding and whose administration has been accused of editing and downplaying scientific findings in government reports on the effects of climate change.
"He didn't appoint a science adviser until eight months into his administration and he had already made a decision on stem cells. And that's just one example . . . the list is absolutely enormous."
Mention of the use of embryonic stem cells for research gets Dr Stebbins particularly animated. Supporters of the practice argue it could lead to a cure for diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's, while critics believe embryos represent potential human life and should not be experimented on.
President Bush banned the use of federal funding for such research in 2001 but Dr Stebbins feels that, in this case, science was stopped on "ill-founded ideological grounds. They're mixing in the abortion issue into something that has nothing to do with abortion, and deceiving the American public," he says.
Dr Stebbins says many embryos do not survive the freezing process and also points out that it is legal for a vial of embryos to be disposed of if parents no longer want them. "The president is okay with that, but he's not okay with you - before you do that - sticking a needle in and pulling some cells out. That's absolutely crazy."
Religion has had too much influence on science, according to Dr Stebbins, notably in areas such as sex education and contraception. He argues that people who take a moral stance on issues such as these should equip themselves with the "best science possible" to try to back their convictions.
Dr Stebbins, who co-founded Scientists and Engineers for America, a group that aims to ensure that science is on the agenda at election time, has been encouraged to see 2008 presidential election candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards make statements on science policy. He says one key aspect of Senator Clinton's plan for science is the re-establishment of the Office of Technology Assessment, which provided scientific advice to Congress before its closure in 1995.
"Since they de-funded it, we've seen almost no progressive science bills come through," he says. "So the US government is not getting good advice in the White House and they're not getting good advice in Congress - and it's showing in the policies that have passed in the last 10 years."
As well as having a body that Congress can turn to for unbiased advice, he thinks it is vital that the president should have a science adviser who reports directly to him. "We are headed towards a troubling time when it comes to energy and global warming . . . and we cannot afford to make missteps on these policies."