Big Science Has Lost Its Way
Ruled by leftist academicians and globalists,
scientific institutions have betrayed the public
There is not one political issue these days where the Big Science Cartel supports a conservative position. Tell us if you can find one. It’s not enough that they wear their leftist, globalist “woke” ideology openly; they censor anyone who disagrees. Big Science is a totalitarian dictatorship, feeding on public money and then trashing the values of the taxpayers while demanding more of their money.
Big Media is their propaganda arm, giving only the materialistic, atheistic, Darwinian point of view on science, and pushing far left causes such as abortion, transgenderism, DEI and even Marxism, presenting leftist ideology as if it is “scientific.” Just like the far left has co-opted Big Hollywood, Big Labor, and Big Education, it has taken dictatorial control over Big Science.
Once again, we do not accuse honorable individual researchers who do honest work in the tradition of empirical rigor and epistemic modesty. We’re speaking of the institutions: the journals, lobbyists and academic deans who enforce policies and procedures. These are the managers who root out conservatives, deny them tenure, and lobby Congress for funding to spend only for leftist, globalist projects. They are the editors who censor Darwin skeptics. I know from experience that Darwin skeptics and political conservatives learn to keep their mouths shut in scientific institutions. The leaders and many of the staff are intolerant of political and social conservatives, and will marginalize and weed them out quietly if not blatantly.
In practical terms, Big Science and their press offices have become arms of the Democrat Party—only the Democrats sometimes are too conservative for them!
Evidence-Based Accusations
This becomes obvious in journal editorial pages. Nature praised the “election” of communist Lula to Brazil last year, but was outraged at recent elections of conservatives or libertarians to Argentina and the Netherlands. I have not seen one editorial praising the policies of Donald Trump. They hate him! Their hatred continues to this day, three years after he left office, but they never have anything bad to say about Biden and his corruption and ineptitude. No wonder; big-spending Democrats keep the funding flowing to Big Science and academia, giving them everything they ask for without accountability.
The current hot ticket for Big Science is climate change. All the funding goes to those who promote the IPCC’s agenda to end all fossil fuels. While they fly private jets to climate conferences, they tell hard-working middle class citizens who like to vacation that they must stay at home or drive electric cars, because the planet is doomed. The climate agenda is dead set against free markets and freedom in general, but it gives the globalists great power over citizens’ lives. Isn’t it curious that the solution to climate change just happens to fit a Marxist ideal, redistribution of wealth? Why not stimulate solutions through free markets, which have a long track record of success at problem solving?
Big Science’s behavior during the Covid-19 pandemic was particularly shameful. They literally censored scientists who disputed the official narrative, and printed lies in journals, some which had to be retracted under scrutiny. A wicked collusion of swamp politics, Big Science and Big Pharma was noted by conservative commentators.
In his confrontation with the religious elites of his day, Jesus said “you shut the kingdom of heaven in front of people; for you do not enter it yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in” (Matthew 23:13). A parallel situation can be found in corrupt Big Science today. The very ones tasked with protecting the honor of science dishonor it with their political bias, and prevent those trying to return science to its historic ideals.
Let’s look at a few more recent examples since our last report.
Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda (Clark et al., PNAS, 20 Nov 2023). This paper justifies censorship! A big band of leftist psychologists and atheist academics like Steven Pinker, who approves of infanticide, joins hands to say censorship can promote the common good:
Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups.
Censorship is nice, they say. It can be “prosocial” for the good of the common folks. They talk at times with halos over their heads, agreeing that censorship sometimes causes harm and needs to be thought through carefully, but this bunch claims that most of the time scientists have pure motives. Well, let them prove it by ending the censorship of Darwin skeptics or climate skeptics. How about that? If censorship can be beneficial, let them start censoring the rampant storytelling by the Darwin Party and godless materialists (see yesterday’s post). Let them give James Tour a fair hearing as he goes after the origin-of-life circus, instead of pushing the molecules-to-man myth and evidence-free astrobiology narratives all the time.
Brazil emissions progress erased under Bolsonaro: report (Phys.org, 24 Nov 2023). This article praises communist leader Lula in Brazil, and trashes his conservative predecessor Bolsonaro. No attempt made at balanced reporting.
UW study shows best leadership style for inclusive hiring depends on manager’s racial identity (Univ of Washington, 28 Nov 2023). Racial discrimination is uniformly agreed to be unethical, but a trait of the Far Left is to view everything through the lens of race. The language of “stereotypes” and “historically marginalized communities” in this article comes right out of the antiracism, BLM playbook.
Policing is not the answer to shoplifting, feeding people is (The Conversation, 28 Nov 2023). Horrendous videos of flash mobs entering department stores, stealing everything in sight, is on the memories of anyone watching fair and balanced news. A spokesperson in Canada for “indigenous studies” gives the leftist “defund the police” narrative, saying that just feeding “marginalized” people will make them behave themselves.
Voters reject culture war tactics in school board elections (University of Southern California, 22 Nov 2023). With fear tactics of “book banning,” this piece attacks parents who tried to stop their students’ school libraries from displaying hardcord pornography. At school board meetings, some tried reading from these books and the board stopped them for speaking such graphic language. To USC, these parents exercising their rights as citizens to express concerns over their children’s welfare was “book banning.” USC was glad they lost a school board election, calling the “culture war tactics” unsuccessful. “American voters on Nov. 7 decisively turned away from candidates with extreme views in key school board races,” the report says. Is this the business of the USC “health science” department, to support hardcore porn?
Despite stronger fears of being a victim of gun violence, California immigrants far less likely to own firearms than citizens (UCLA, 28 Nov 2023). This article mentions “immigrants” without mentioning whether they are illegal immigrants or not, and assumes that immigrants are more conscientious about gun ownership than US citizens, who have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
What causes political corruption? USC Price experts explain (University of Southern California, 16 Nov 2023). Corruption is bad, USC agrees, but the article is all about Bob Menendez. The current Exhibit A for political corruption and scandal—Joe Biden—is entirely ignored!
Almost two-thirds of residents in US family medicine programs are training in states that have abortion restrictions (Medical Xpress, 28 Nov 2023). More fearmongering here: states that restrict abortions face a danger of not having enough resident family physicians. What does Big Science want? More family physicians teaching mothers how to kill their babies? “Most residency programs with abortion training (85%) were in states with protective abortion policies,” this article says with unmitigated pro-abortion bias. They want to
mitigate this effect by establishing explicit family medicine requirements for developing skills in comprehensive reproductive health care, regardless of policy environment.
They also assert that individual residency program leadership teams, as well as family medicine organizations, must work to optimize training in restrictive states and expand abortion training where possible to promote high-quality, equitable reproductive health care in the context of abortion restrictions.
The euphemisms for destroying life in the womb are beyond execrable. They’re advising medical programs to teach doctors to tell patients it’s OK to burn babies with salt, cut them up, or vacuum them out into a trash can—without any restrictions at all.
Birth rates have risen in states with abortion bans (Medical Xpress, 22 Nov 2023). Here’s another article strongly slanted in support of abortion. “All of the material resources necessary for a family to not just barely survive, but to thrive in our society are going to be impacted by their ability to access health care, broadly speaking, and abortion care, specifically.” Message: kids are a financial burden, so kill them. But demographic studies say we need more babies! Birth rates have fallen dangerously low. Why is Big Science and Big Media not promoting childbirth and family life? They should be celebrating a rise in births, but this article makes it seem like killing infants is a better option.
Additional pro-abortion pieces can be found from Dartmouth University (7 Nov), glad that women are waking up to support for abortion rights after Dobbs; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (6 Nov) worried about “limited access to abortion” after Dobbs; Medical Xpress (23 Oct) worried over lack of abortion coverage at many workplaces.
As homeschooling numbers keep rising in Australia, is more regulation a good idea? (The Conversation, 2o Nov 2023). Leftists take it as a given that public school is good and homeschooling is bad. This is because they fear parents removing children from their indoctrination centers. This lecturer at the University of Queensland is worried about the rise in homeschooling, and wants government officials to find better ways to regulate it. She claims that many homeschooling parents are “unqualified” for teaching, as if those in public schools are qualified! If you been following the scandals about teachers’ unions and what public school teachers are teaching kids, including pressuring young kids to consider transgender surgery without telling parents, sleeping with their students, bringing in drag queens and putting porn in the libraries, you will wag your head at this article.
The big business of sustainable food production and consumption: Exploring the transition to alternative proteins (PNAS, 20 Nov 2023). Because of climate alarmism, Big Science wants to outlaw beef. Eat your bugs! You will have nothing and be happy! Penalty: read Adam Smith and learn about free market economics.
The new Twitter is changing rapidly — study it before it’s too late (Nature, 7 Nov 2023). Big Science hates Elon Musk almost as much as it hates Donald Trump. Fear tactics are employed here to scare readers into destroying the one big social media platform that is not censoring conservatives.
Higher cognitive ability linked to higher chance of having voted against Brexit (Public Library of Science, 20 Nov 2023). Stupid people voted for Brexit (a move by conservative citizens fed up with globalism). Smart people opposed it. You get the idea.
Israel-Hamas war sends shock waves through scientific community (Science, 19 Oct 2023). An Israeli journalist does a fairly balanced job reporting facts and numbers about the war just 12 days after it began, but pays inordinate attention to the Palestinian science community and its institutions, blaming Israel for much of the trouble.
In Gaza, the situation is dire, says Awartani, a former education minister for the Palestinian Authority, which presides over the West Bank. Even before the current war, Israel’s blockade of Gaza made it extremely difficult for Palestinian researchers to receive funding or attend conferences overseas, and for foreign researchers to work in Gaza’s universities. Israel often blocked the importation of scientific equipment, citing security concerns.
Articles in support of Israel since this one have been almost non-existent in Big Science journals. If you find one, notify us.
The community should also support Palestinian scientists (Nature, 21 Nov 2023). A microcosm of the Holocaust was committed by Hamas against unsuspecting Jews in Israel on Oct 7th. Some atrocities were too brutal and nightmarish to mention in public. The equivalent of 20 instances of ‘9-11″ were committed in Israel, with over 1,300 murdered and over 200 hostages taken, including babies and children. Where is Nature‘s outrage? Where are chants of “Never again!” to be found? Is Nature becoming a Holocaust denier? Nature prints a plea by a pro-Palestinian Jordanian hiding behind concern for “Palestinian scientists” as Israel applies just war theory to eliminate the threat to its people. What about the families of Israeli scientists who were killed in cold blood?
Is it any wonder that colleges and universities in the US, Europe and Australia, staffed by far-left professors, have unleashed an embarrassing horde of loud-chanting students blocking highways and government chambers, accusing Israel of committing “genocide” and demanding the elimination of the Jewish state? This is like a murderer blaming the victim for damaging his knife. Israel has been doing all it can to prevent civilian casualties, but Hamas uses civilians as human shields, and put its headquarters in tunnels under Gaza’s largest hospital. Big Science should not even be commenting on politics.
What does it mean to be asexual? (The Conversation, 16 Nov 2023). An Australian female “professor” justifies homosexuality and any other “identity” someone chooses as the new normal. Forget the Bible; that’s ancient history.
Before this, homosexual sex was often considered sinful or degenerate, but sex was seen as just a behaviour not an identity – something a person does, not who they “are”. There was no category of “the homosexual” and heterosexuality was only determined in response to this categorisation of sexuality.
This history means that, today, sexual identity is considered an important part of what defines us as a person. For lesbian, gay or bisexual people, “coming out” is about building a sense of self and belonging in the face of institutional and cultural opposition to homosexuality.
The Ethical Slut has been called ‘the bible’ of non-monogamy – but its sexual utopia is oversimplified (The Conversation, 20 Nov 2023). Believe it or not, this article by a science expert in sex is pushing polygamy. She couches her new ‘bible’ in the euphemism “non-monogamy” but this is a direct slap in the face to all believers in the Ten Commandments. Slut used to be a bad word. It still is. There is no such thing as an ‘ethical’ slut.
With that, we must stop. I could show dozens of similar examples. On every issue, the slant is biased to the far left. How can normal citizens respect science any more?
Keep in mind that these same people claim that 99% of reality is in Dark Stuff that cannot be observed, that life started by chemical accidents, that people came from bacteria, and there might be an infinity of universes. They are also the world’s worst Just-So Storytellers who live in Fantasyland.
If you are an honest scientist doing legitimate investigation into the workings of nature with controlled experiments, we are on your side. But the institutions have betrayed you. These are tragic days for a once-honorable profession.
Dr Bergman has published three thick volumes with true stories of how Darwinists systematically censor and ruin the careers of Darwin skeptics. He also includes accounts of how the Darwinists try to control bookstores, libraries, newspaper reporting, publishing houses, grants, curricula and internet search algorithms, especially in Vol. III.