This is well presented. It is good investigative journalism on a subject that needs to be put before the public. It is just not clear to me how government officials can jump into the world of business and compete for government contracts from the branch of government that they worked for so quickly. There should be a period where companies that officials like this work for have to recuse themselves from competition.

I am absolutely amazed that the National Academy of Science would publish this in their Proceedings (PNAS). PNAS is a coveted journal for scientists to get papers published in. They have to be sponsored by a well respected scientist who is a member of the Academy to have a chance to win a spot in the journal. The paper covered in this WaPo piece is in my estimation a waste of energy (no pun intended). The real question is "therefore what?" The conclusion doesn't lead anywhere...people are not going to stay in bad relationships to decrease their carbon footprint. It is going to be hard enough to get people to focus on what they do already in terms of carbon generation without being forced to think about their most personal ... More »

This is important journalism. We need to keep the spotlight on the biases against science in this country....to avoid a takeover by "pseudo-science" forces willing to bend facts to fit a particular point of view. We will be taking a giant step backwards as a culture if we continue to allow science to be used as a tool to satisfy people who want to close their minds and those of our children to information that disrupts their desire to maintain a particular world view - against all evidence.

This is a very important story but I don't know the source well enough to say it is truly "trustworthy". This is clearly a story that is easy to get into a true rant about given the high likelihood that administration officials have known about this report for quite a while in spite of their public statements that contradict the report. In terms of style of presentation the continued use of phrases like "faith-based approach" and the effort to compare the report's release to a birth make the reporting seem too emotional and a little harder to take seriously as high quality journalism.

This is a well researched coverage of a major problem. It does a good job at outlining the incentives of the people selling subprime debt to consumers .

This is a good story highlighting a very serious problem that the US is facing right now. It needs to be told in places where more Americans will see it and begin to understand it. Anyone that travels to Europe gets it immediately - especially in London. I am afraid that the Economist is not a publication that the average American reads even though it is one of the most trustworthy publications in the world.

I am the CEO of a company in biotech. This is a great article!! It really opened my eyes to some things I didn't know that are very timely. I forwarded the link to some of my colleagues almost embarrassed that I was forwarding them something "scientific" from the New Yorker...but in this day and age you can't be too choosy where you find really good journalism. I was amazed to see it on the NewsTrust site after just discovering it yesterday in print.