Big Science Has Prostituted Its Core Mission
While individual scientists do pristine work, the major institutions of science and media have become propaganda arms for leftist causes.
Sadly, Big Science long ago left the values of Boyle and Faraday in the dust for progress: that is, the rush into Progressive politics. No longer concerned with following the evidence where it leads, it has become another political special interest group. The institutions and their lapdog reporters push leftist causes and grub for money from the government largess. To regain their purity, maybe they need to declare independence from government funding.
When the subject matter does not concern political views or origins, Big Science can appear to support sound, unbiased conclusions. (Even these are often tainted, however, with Darwinist flies in the ointment.) Individual scientists can be, and often are, empirical heroes of the highest order, bringing pure knowledge to mankind. Most of them, however, have to work within labs and academic institutions that everyone knows lean overwhelmingly left of center.
Name any policy issue, and you will find Big Science taking the Democrat, liberal, leftist position. Here are some recent examples.
A CDC ban on ‘fetus’ and ‘transgender?’ Experts alarmed (Medical Xpress). This leftist reflex happened as quick as a tap on the knee. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is asking that loaded words be avoided in internal documents that will go to Congress for votes on policy. It is certainly legitimate for an arm of the Executive Department to follow the wishes of its leadership. Words like “diversity,” ”entitlement,” ”fetus,” transgender,” ”vulnerable,” ”evidence-based” and “science-based” could be seen, by an unbiased philosopher of science, as too conclusory or emotional for scientific discourse. The CDC is not “banning” these words, the article says, but just advising. The reaction by unspecified “health experts” and anti-Trump elements in academia and the media, however, is way over the top, as seen in the article’s baseless claims that scientists are now terrified to use these words in their work. New Scientist is even more brazen in its scare tactics, announcing, “How Trump’s ‘ban’ on science words could harm public health.” One can bet they are not too timid to use leftist jargon.
Sign-ups show health law’s staying power in Trump era (Medical Xpress). This is another attempt to prop up Obamacare in a Republican administration. As usual, no attempt is made to give a conservative view of this highly unpopular law. There’s no mention that the “ACA” (Affordable Care Aft) punishes citizens who do not wish to participate in what, to them, is outrageously unaffordable. The ACA was built on lies: “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” and claims that everyone’s insurance premiums would go down. By siding with the Democrats, this article prostitutes its role to give a ‘scientific’ look at the evidence.
As tax bill unfolds, what’s in store for Obamacare’s individual mandate? (Medical Xpress). Ditto for this article propping up Obamacare with expertise from the ‘Center for American Progress,’ a far left organization created and funded by anti-American billionnaire George Soros! Pretending to be a news article, it shows its bias against the Republican vow to repeal Obamacare as well as against the tax cut bill being voted on this week. Guess how many Senate Democrats are for the tax bill. This article could have been written by the Democratic National Committee.
Loss of net neutrality could harm research (Nature). Of the few who even understand ‘net neutrality,’ there are citizens in both parties with strong opinions for or against. Before debating the reversal of Obama’s earlier executive order that instigated ‘net neutrality’ in 2015, however, everyone should realize that the term is a misnomer. There is nothing neutral about it. The issue is about power: who gets to control internet resources, private companies or the government? Big-government liberals tend to be vastly on the side of government regulation. Conservatives, by contrast, tend to favor freedom for businesses to offer services and freedom for their customers to choose which services they want to buy. One should also note that the internet did just fine before Obama’s unilateral action, a period when popular services flourished. At most, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s reversal a few days ago should be seen as a return to the pre-2015 status quo, when the internet flourished. New network infrastructure investment has languished since 2015. Congress maintains its constitutional power to change the law if needed. Nature, however, went berserk with its fearmongering that this move will bring on a real ‘Y2K catastrophe’ scenario. Let’s wait a couple of years and see how good Nature‘s editors are at prophecy. Does anyone really care about what the UN thinks about this? Phys.org gave a very one-sided opinion in its article, “UN rights expert ‘very concerned’ about US rollback of ‘net neutrality’.”
Goldwater rule? Should psychiatrists be allowed to publicly comment on mental health of public figures? (Science Daily). Incredibly, this article defends the right of psychologists and psychiatrists to call Trump insane. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) instituted the ‘Goldwater Rule’ in 1973 when certain psychologists and psychiatrists crossed an ‘ethical line’ by trying to perform remote diagnoses on the mental health of Republican candidate Barry Goldwater. “The Goldwater Rule,” this article says, “gained new attention after Donald Trump entered the political arena.” The meaning is obvious. Scientifically speaking, even if psychology were defensible as a science, a practitioner cannot hope to analyze a patient without a thorough examination of the evidence in person. To make a conclusion based on Trump statements filtered through a liberal press—well, now, that’s insane.
Good unbiased scientists are trapped. They dare not speak out against all this bias in their institutions for fear of losing their jobs, and oftentimes they need government funds to do their work. The funding will never come, however, for scientists wishing to offer evidence against global warming or for intelligent design. So they acquiesce in silence, going along to get along.
We have a suggestion: Affirmative Action for conservatives. The government should decrease funding for any institution that does not show parity for both parties. This could be done on a sliding scale, with more funding as the institution approaches 50-50 party affiliation. Such a policy would motivate academic leaders to stop the horribly lopsided situation that exists now, where over 90% of scientists and professors are Democrats in most research labs and universities. In a country so politically divided where Democrats won the last presidency and Republicans won this presidency, that seems only fair. It would also be a clever way to use the liberals’ own political strategy against them.