Big Science Abandons Political Neutrality
The self-assumed voices of science are now overtly political, and proud of it. Predictably, they have followed the globalist leftists.
Scientists once valued objectivity and neutrality. Not any more. They have taken off their white lab coats and revealed rainbows and raised fists on their dark blue uniforms.
Many individual scientists still do honest lab work, but their spokespersons (journal editors, university department heads, and other influencers who presume to “speak for science”) have joined the ranks of the radical leftists, the Democrat party, and the global elitists. What they want now is consensus conformity. Scientists are not allowed to have unapproved opinions about evolution, the origin of life by chance, the sexual revolution or climate change. Big Science expects uniformity among its ranks. All must become activists for the Democrat Party.
We have collected too many articles in the last two months to prove this, so here are a few samples, beginning with today’s announcement from Nature, the world’s most prestigious science journal (which was originally founded to promote Darwin’s views).
Why Nature supports Joe Biden for US president (Nature). Journals never used to endorse political candidates. Now, the mask is off at Nature. Gone is any pretense of objectivity. This UK-based media giant is interfering in the US election.
We cannot stand by and let science be undermined. Joe Biden’s trust in truth, evidence, science and democracy make him the only choice in the US election.
Readers must understand that “science” is Big Science’s euphemism for consensus. Here, they have dressed the term in other loaded words, “truth, evidence… and democracy.” But why would Nature promote an old white guy who can’t remember where he is half the time? It’s not because of Biden. It’s because of the radical movement he stands for—the movement that claims to follow the “science” but is really for global redistribution of wealth (i.e., communism).
Why Nature needs to cover politics now more than ever (Nature). They warned this was coming. And it’s in full flower as the USA election approaches. “Science and politics are inseparable — and Nature will be publishing more politics news, comment and primary research in the coming weeks and months.” Notice the leftist buzzwords and motivations in their justification for becoming political:
Science and politics have always depended on each other. The decisions and actions of politicians affect research funding and research-policy priorities. At the same time, science and research inform and shape a spectrum of public policies, from environmental protection to data ethics. The actions of politicians affect the higher-education environment, too. They can ensure that academic freedom is upheld, and commit institutions to work harder to protect equality, diversity and inclusion, and to give more space to voices from previously marginalized communities. However, politicians also have the power to pass laws that do the opposite.
Ah yes, funding. Diversity and Inclusion, those leftist buzzwords that arose about 20 years ago as Newspeak for uniformity and persecution. Marginalized communities: a phrase that has nothing to do with science. Environmental protection, that euphemism for anthropogenic global warming and Paris climate accords. But this paragraph begs the question that the funding and support can only come from Democrats like Joe Biden. And who is Nature to boast about “data ethics” when the replication crisis occurred on their watch? Who is Nature to boast about the “higher-education environment” that has no “diversity and inclusion” when it comes to the consensus? Who is Nature to boast about academic freedom, when they routinely persecute and expel anyone not in conformity, and censor alternative views? The hypocrisy here is palpable.
Leading medical journal blasts Trump’s ‘astonishing’ failure in pandemic response, says to vote him out (Live Science). Only Democrats are calling the COVID-19 response a failure, usually without evidence, hoping that the word “disaster” will be sufficient to influence people with emotional rhetoric. Republicans boast of Trump’s rapid response and overwhelming supply of PPEs, ventilators and medicines at record paces, at a time when Joe Biden was calling Trump’s travel restrictions “racist” and “xenophobic” in February and March. This was an astonishing failure, all right – an astonishing failure of science media to be objective. The article doesn’t even attempt to provide balance. That’s not very scientific.
What Trump’s Supreme Court pick could mean for science (Nature). Today, well-qualified jurist Amy Coney Barrett is being grilled by Democrat Senators for the second day. Any guesses which side Nature‘s editors take on the decision to confirm her or not? “If confirmed, Amy Coney Barrett is likely to influence the court on environmental regulation, scientific expertise and agency transparency, say legal scholars.” Legal scholars. Were Scalia, Thomas and Barrett legal scholars? Study the Card Stacking fallacy in the Baloney Detector.
What a Joe Biden presidency would mean for five key science issues (Nature). This is a curious list of items to support Nature‘s support for Biden. Global warming is expected for a leftist rag like Nature, and they echo the talking points about the coronavirus response, and whatever “international collaboration” means, begging questions that Republicans do not collaborate. But “space exploration”? The Trump administration rescued NASA from the ruins left by the previous administration, got American rockets to the space station again, and set NASA on the goal of a return to the moon after 50 years since Apollo, and set NASA’s sights on the visionary goal of sending astronauts to Mars. This Nature article was intended from top to bottom to attack Republicans and support Democrats.
Trump lied about science (Science Magazine). AAAS president Holden Thorpe with his prideful smirk calls Trump a liar, repeating the Democrat lie that Trump knew the coronavirus was serious but failed to tell the public how serious it was. That’s a strange lie, if actions speak louder than words. Prior to the statement recorded by Bob Woodward on Feb 7th, which Trump says was to avoid panic, Trump was taking swift and bold action to protect America from the virus. He had shut down travel and called together leading epidemiologists for a task force. This was all at the time when the Democrats were all playing down the virus, encouraging large gatherings (e.g., Pelosi in San Francisco inviting crowds to Chinatown) and criticizing Trump for xenophobia, just after the House had wasted months on a fake impeachment as news about the virus was surfacing.
Wired Magazine interviewed Thorpe in its biased coverage about the above editorial, throwing softball questions and never giving a Republican response: “America’s Top Science Journal Has Had It With Trump,” finding it amusing that “The editor of Science has abandoned staid academic-speak to take on falsehoods in the White House—decorum be damned.” Thorpe did worse than his assertion about Trump: he lied in Science about science.
Scientific American breaks with 175-year tradition, endorses Joe Biden for US President (Scientific American). “We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now.” Like Nature and other journals, this supports the contention that Big Science has become a leftist-leaning cabal of political hacks. Phys.org reported this first-ever endorsement with SA’s that “President Trump rejects science.” This shows once again that Big Science and Big Science Media are fraternal twins. The Editors of S.A. have completely repudiated their founding principles, as stated in its first issue by president Rufus Porter (August, 1845), a creationist:
First, then, let us, as rational creatures, be ever ready to acknowledge God as our Creator and daily Preserver; and that we are each of us individually dependent on his special care and good will towards us, in supporting the wonderful action of nature which constitutes our existence…. . Let us also, knowing our entire dependence on Divine Benevolence, as rational creatures, do ourselves the honor to express personally and frequently, our thanks to Him for His goodness; and to present our petitions to Him for the favours which we constantly require.
Tired of science being ignored? Get political (Nature). In this Worldview opinion piece, Mary T. Bassett echoes the sentiments of the editors that Trump is “ignoring science,” speaking of “Donald Trump’s administration for its failures and its attacks on science.” She uses these bald assertions as motivations for political activism (see fear-mongering in the Baloney Detector). This from a woman who supports abortion on demand for any and every reason up to birth, thinks men can be women, and believes that our brains are products of chance. Need an example of Big Science ignoring the science? Read this from FRC, and the counter-argument by Graham Lawton at New Scientist. Pick your consensus: 34,000 scientists and medical practitioners who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, or one science reporter saying the other side has “bad science.” At least you can read both sides here.
Big Science, including all its DODO Darwin-lovers, has been exposed. From now on, Big Science must be looked upon as an arm of the Democrat Party and a pressure group for global leftist tyranny, where the Newspeak prevails, everything evolves, and objectivity brings persecution. It’s a Brave New World. Those of us with knowledge of the history and philosophy of science must never forget what “science” was supposed to be about.
Big Science has become a swamp. Its leaders are proud and full of themselves. They act like they “own” science and deserve all the money they want. Well, they can go ahead and research anything they want – with their own money. Like any entrepreneur, they can see if it sells. But when they want Government funding, they need to remember they are plundering taxpayers’ pockets. Taxpayers are the real stakeholders in government-funded research. It is perfectly appropriate for their elected representatives to set the agenda according to national interest. If they have other priorities, let them raise their own money, use GoFundMe, or convince a benefactor like a modern Andrew Carnegie. Don’t come banging on the public till with their beggar tin cans.
Recommended Resource: Dinesh D’Souza’s new release Trump Card ends with a chilling re-enactment of the ending of George Orwell’s novel 1984, where Wilson is tortured mercilessly for not seeing five fingers when his interrogator is holding up four fingers. In the science of the state, truth is what the state says it is. The documentary contains shocking interviews about how global organizations, including radical Muslims in Iran, are using every trick in the book to get Trump out of office.
For Trump haters, see what scholar Thomas Klingenstein says about the global issues concerning this year’s election (YouTube). This is not about a man, he argues. It’s about a movement, and two radically opposed view of the world.