November 10, 2020 | David F. Coppedge

Big Science Tells Biden What to Do

The UK journal Nature keeps interfering in US science policy, forgetting that elected representatives are of, for, and by the people.

The US election is not even over yet, but many pro-Democrat institutions have already been treating Democrat Joe Biden as the de facto president, calling him “president-elect” Biden. He may win the title of President eventually, but until all the votes are counted and the lawsuits over plausible claims of election fraud (WND) are ruled on by the courts, President Trump could conceivably win re-election. That’s not stopping radical leftists, including rioters from BLM and Antifa from partying in the streets as they throw four-letter words at Trump and his team. Some of the radical Dems are even making lists of Republicans for the “cancel culture” to persecute once Biden gains power by legal or by fraudulent means. To the leftists, globalists, Big Education, Big Media and Big Science, the administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris is a fait accompli.

The Big Science Puppetmasters

There is perhaps no institution more globalist in outlook than Big Science, except perhaps the United Nations. Scientific sharing and collaboration is desirable, of course, unless it includes dual-use technologies: discoveries with civilian and military applications. China has long been guilty of stealing US technology secrets. Trump was strong against that, but China sees Biden as their friend who will let them have anything they want. Republicans point to how the Biden family could be severely compromised over prior deals with China for the Biden’s personal enrichment, making him potentially weak against their international excursions.

The editors of Nature, the exemplars of Big Science, care little about such things. They forget that the President of the United States is elected by US citizens for their security and prestige, to protect and secure individual liberties from all enemies foreign and domestic. Nature‘s editors were absolutely aghast the day after the election to learn that so many citizens rejected the Democrat “blue wave” that the pollsters had wrongly predicted (4 Nov 2020). They seem to think the US Presidency is their property. With strong lobbying potential through their global partners and historical prestige, they expect to wield significant power on executive policies, whether or not the US citizens approve, because they posture themselves as having “science” on their side. President Trump resisted their influence on his cabinet selections, rightly pointing out that not all scientists agree on things like energy policy (windmills and solar farms kill birds, for example). This is what made Nature so aghast: to them, consensus is science, and science is consensus. How dare Trump think otherwise with his “America First” policy. How dare he pull out of the Paris Climate Accords! Biden, on the other hand, makes a point of “listening to the scientists,” and so Big Science loves him.

The AAAS, publishers of Science, issued a similar statement of gushy congratulations to Biden (whose election is still being litigated), hinting at what they expect him to do.

AAAS Statement on Election Results

Upon the announcement that former Vice President Biden had become the projected winner of the presidency, AAAS CEO Sudip Parikh issued a statement of congratulations to Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. “As newly elected candidates prepare to take office, we stand ready and willing to assist efforts at the national and state level[s] to address critical challenges that would benefit from scientific expertise, including the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, national and energy security, and scientific and economic competitiveness, among others. We look forward to working with you.”

Exercise: pick the characters outside the sphere that are most like Biden and Trump.

 

The Hand Inside the Puppet

Expecting that a president Biden would do their bidding, Nature published a “Memo for President Biden: Five steps to getting more from science.” The subtitle threatens a major reversal of President Trump’s presumed ‘anti-science’ policies: “Going back to normal is not enough. A revamp is required.” Here are their five steps:

  1. Let an oft-overlooked White House office lead the pandemic response. To all the leftists, Trump blew the response to the China coronavirus, even though the first vaccine has just been announced 5 days after the election, and in record time (7 months instead of four years, due to Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed”). Big Science wants a leadership of their liking – one they can control, even if the office recommends lengthy economy-crippling shutdowns. They claim that Trump’s pandemic response team lacked “congressional oversight.” But of course; they were too busy trying to impeach him when the virus came to America, as he was taking bold actions to hinder its damage.
  2. Make advisory offices more independent. Good to a point, this step tries to insulate a sitting president from setting policy based on the will of the people who elected him. In practical terms, it means giving Big Science and the consensus more control of science policy.
  3. Expedite scientific integrity legislation. This advice is actually quite good, because Big Science has been plagued by fraud and misconduct, according to a linked commentary in Nature 12 October, “Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk.” A closer look at Nature‘s advice, though, uncovers more of a power grab by Big Science: “Several proposals exist that would promote scientific integrity, protect agency officials and strengthen the ability of Congress to keep the executive branch in check.” Every president has the right to put people in his Cabinet that agree with his positions. Big Science’s plan is to put consensus-faithful directors in executive cabinet positions and insulate them from presidential hiring or firing authority.
  4. Give public universities tough love and lots of support. Ah yes; the universities. Nature loves American universities where professors are often 90% Democrat or even 100% in some cases. Their eyes gleam with the thought of a president Biden loving these Democrat power centers and giving them lots of taxpayer money to do whatever they want, including harvesting baby body parts from abortions, cloning human embryos, and writing endless papers on climate change. More money will undoubtedly include maintaining Darwin-only philosophy, resulting in more persecution of Darwin doubters.
  5. Refocus science funding. Yes; send lots of money for more research on climate change, green energy, social equality, and Darwinism. Big Science prides itself on how much money it can grab from taxpayers’ pockets. Any reduction is deemed “anti-science” in their view. The tactic mimics Critical Race Theory, which labels any non-person-of-color a “racist” based on their skin color, condemning them as guilty and needing to repent and pay reparations. Long gone are the days of independent research or projects funded by philanthropists. Big Science calls taxpayer money “Mine!” and calls anybody who doesn’t want them taking so much “Anti-science!”

The AAAS put pressure on Biden to do what the puppetmasters of Big Science are expecting.

Biden-Harris Transition Website

Biden’s campaign site has become a transition site, where reports on some of his future administration’s pending moves are being announced. On the environment and climate change, Biden has indicated a sharp turn and will move to restore dozens of environmental safeguards President Trump abolished and to recommit the U.S. to the Paris climate accord. AAAS will continue to report on pending proposals and their impact on the scientific community. It was reported in the media that one of the first acts that the president-elect would do is overturn executive orders issued by the current administration.

The AAAS is giddy that Biden’s administration will follow their idea of “science” (i.e., the global consensus) and will be known as the anti-Trump administration.

Interesting that Nature takes a strong stand on “integrity” when they think integrity evolved by natural selection. To a consistent Darwinian, integrity-speak is simply a strategy for increasing fitness, which translates into social and political power. But if integrity is an evolutionary strategy, it no longer has any truth content or ethical content. It’s just a tactic for getting what the individual or group wants in order to increase their offspring. In the big picture, it’s not even about getting what they want. It’s about the genes treating the organisms as their puppets. And who knows why mindless genes would even wish to do such a thing.

 

 

(Visited 273 times, 2 visits today)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.