Why Has Big Science Become Politically Partisan?
It’s no secret: Big Science
and its cohorts in media are
all in for the political left
Ideally, science should be apolitical. It’s focus should be on explaining the natural world. But we’ve looked for years for any “science” articles that have something good to say about conservative politicians, whether American or anywhere else in the world. No matter the issue touching on politics, whether abortion, illegal immigration, gender identity, racism, gun rights, crime, or anything else, Big Science and Big Science Media put out statements matching the far left of the Democrat party. Some recent examples:
Trump, Harris Spar Over Abortion Rights and Obamacare in Their First Face-Off (11 Sept 2024, KFF Health News). Aligned with left-leaning “fact checker” Politifact, this health news site gives poor grades to Trump and lets Harris shine the day after their debate. But you could have guessed that from the headline that speaks of “abortion rights.” This article was proudly displayed on the “science” site Medical Xpress, along with a portrait of Kamala Harris made to look as attractive as possible.
US election debate: what Harris and Trump said about science (11 Sept 2024, Nature News). This report on the Sept 10th debate tries to offer a veneer of objectivity, but tilts not so subtly to Harris. Like the debate moderators, they tended to fact-check Trump but not Harris, giving more favorable accounts of her stances on abortion and climate change as more in tune with the “scientific consensus” and citing liberal “experts” in their analyses:
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, says that there is room for growth in Harris’s approach to tackling climate change. In line with the Biden administration, she takes a ‘demand-side approach’ to reducing emissions by incentivizing renewable energy, which is “not enough”, he says. But she at least embraces the scientific consensus and acknowledges the “catastrophic impacts on human health”. A second term for Trump, who once called climate change a hoax, “would be game over for climate action as we know it”, he says.
A UC Berkeley linguist explores what Kamala Harris’ voice and speech reveal about her identity (6 Aug 2024, UC Berkeley News). “When we talk about Kamala Harris as a modern candidate, she is in some ways embodying all of the ways the country has moved on from the idea that you can only be one thing at once,” reads reporter Jason Pohl’s subtitle for his glowing account of the Democrat. This article was cross-posted on Phys.org. We have yet to see the science news amalgamating sites like Phys.org, Medical Xpress or The Conversation ever cross-posting an article favorable to Republicans. Mainstream media outlets typically echo these press releases around the world as the voices of “science.”
Gen Zers who follow politics and media trend toward Kamala Harris, study finds (12 Sept 2024, UCLA Newsroom). This article also cross-posted by Phys.org reads like a campaign ad for the Democrat candidate, beginning with the favorable photograph at the top. No attempt at balance here. No mention of the tens of thousands attending Trump rallies, or the many polls favorable to Republicans.
JD Vance got ‘single cat women’ all wrong. Our research shows they wouldn’t vote for him anyway (3 Sept 2024, The Conversation). This is a highly-biased article that criticizes Republican V.P. candidate J.D. Vance (without giving him any rebuttal space) but makes Democrat Kamala Harris look like a saint, despite her numerous well-documented lies and flipflops on issues. Example quote:
There are likely numerous reasons for this growing gender gap, including the historic nature of Harris’ campaign and Trump’s numerous well-documented conflicts with women. However, one source of these polling deficits may be tied to Trump’s vice presidential nominee’s attack on single women and women without children.
UCLA study tracks former President Donald Trump’s weaponization of words (21 Aug 2024, UCLA Newsroom). Who is the only candidate ‘weaponizing words,’ according to this UCLA article that was republished on “science news” site Phys.org? Only Trump, of course—nothing about Biden or Harris calling Trump “a threat to democracy” numerous times, and other such words that played into assassination attempts (two so far) against the former president. Nothing is said either about the weaponization of the justice system against Trump with lawsuits after Trump announced his candidacy, or the impeachments, hoaxes and witch hunts that have hounded Trump and angered his 74 million supporters.
Most young voters support Kamala Harris − but that doesn’t guarantee they will show up at the polls (16 Aug 2024, The Conversation). Another article at this quasi-science website begins with Harris surrounded by smiling young people, practically encouraging them to get up and vote for her, e.g.: “Whether young citizens will show up and deliver the presidency to Harris or stay home and yield to Trump remains to be seen.” What about the huge rallies for Trump that Charlie Kirk is getting with young people on college campuses with his organization Turning Point USA?
Analysis of the Media Bias
In America, Big Science risks alienating tens of millions of citizens who oppose the leftist positions of the Democrats. Why doesn’t Big Science care about that? Its spokespersons and media accomplices keep up the far-left drumbeat anyway. Why is that? Don’t they realize that Republicans, conservatives and many independent voters are perceptive enough to see Big Science as joined at the hip with the Democrat Party?
At Evolution News on 17 Sept 2024, editor David Klinghoffer wrote about “Why Science Journals Indulge in Partisanship.” He drew from his friendship with radio host and movie critic Michael Medved to draw a comparison with Hollywood and its legendary leftist bent that alienates moviegoers who prefer apolitical films. It’s the “lure of esteem” by their peers:
It seems so obvious that science loses public trust when it engages in political activism. I’d say the same thing if they abused the name of science to wrap a Republican, or a Democrat, in it. Why do the journals do it, then, and so fulsomely? Probably for the same reason that Hollywood behaves as it does. Years ago in his book Hollywood vs. America, Michael Medved, who had covered Hollywood as a TV and print journalist, offered an astute insight. He pointed out that movies that are apolitical and rated G make more money than edgy films that push politics, or push sex, and earn a rating of R.
If moviemakers valued money above all, they would stick to safe G-rated fare. But they don’t. Medved argued that more than profits, filmmakers valued the esteem of their friends in the film business — the prestige within the industry that comes from pushing at those very same edges. They were willing to give up money in the pursuit of feeling special about themselves. And only their peers, not the public, could provide that as an emolument.
This, Klinghoffer argues, explains the motivation for political partisanship in Big Science.
Certainly the Big Science community leans heavily leftist and “woke” as I saw firsthand at NASA/JPL: liberals could say almost anything any time, but conservatives knew to keep their mouths shut, especially those with religious convictions about morality. Other factors include the perception that Democrats are more likely to fund the pet projects that the leaders of Big Science (lobbyists, academic deans and journal editors) want.
But the biggest reason, in my experience, is the commitment to a materialist Darwinian worldview. When Big Science went Sole Darwin at the Scopes Trial a century ago, it attracted and embraced those who want no part of God in their thinking, and began censoring anyone else. So who was left? Atheists, materialists, and evolutionists who, like Darwin, were political liberals. From then on, Big Science rejected the faith of the founding fathers of science, many of the greatest who were Christians, and spends its praise on its own Darwin-worshiping heroes like Marxists and bigots Fisher, Haldane, Hamilton and Dawkins (2 Sept 2004).