Big Science: Go Woke, Go Broke

The “scientific community”
had better re-balance its
politics if it wants a future

 

Here at CEH, we are still looking for the slightest glimmer of movement by scientific leaders away from Wokeness (meaning: liberal politics, Trump Derangement Syndrome, allegiance to diversity-equity-inclusion mantras, and the like). Big Science* is tied at the hip with the Democrat Party in the USA and with globalists, leftists and materialists internationally, in a “consensus” community all prostrating themselves before the idol of Charley Darwin. Read the news and you will see Big Science engaging in daily two-minute-hate exercises against conservatives who hold to traditional values and belief in God. This is a recipe for its own demise. Science was not always like this. Science shouldn’t be like this.

*Once again, we do not include all practicing scientists in this category. Big Science is our term for the power brokers in science: the journal editors, lobbyists and academic deans who pretend to “speak for science” and who determine the political agenda for the so-called “scientific community.” Ever since the Darwinian materialists infiltrated and gained control of Big Education and Big Media, however, their influence has permeated those institutions as well. As a result of their censorship, Darwinian materialism is all their constituents ever hear from Kindergarten to PhD. Living in fogma, scientists grow to visualize science as co-extensive with Darwinian materialism.

Many practicing scientists do good work in their specializations as long as their work does not bear on issues of origins. But if they step out of line ideologically, they will find it hard to get published, gain tenure, keep their jobs, or advance in their careers. (Ask me; I know something about that.)

Surely there is something, somewhere, maybe hidden under a rock at the Smithsonian, that looks like the Trump administration is doing something right. Maybe stopping seven bloody wars with two more being worked on. Maybe increasing funds and AI technologies to solve childhood cancer. Maybe reducing inflation and bringing in trillions of dollars in new investment. Isn’t there something? Anything?

Not yet. We are still seeing daily rants against conservatives, as shown in the following recent headlines. The Pavlovian reflex, is this: ‘if Trump is doing something, it’s evil.’ Milder forms go like this: ‘Well, maybe so, but it’s controversial. Not all scientists agree.’

We’re using Trump here as an icon of conservativism, but the same attitude prevails in Big Science when it comes to any conservative political leader or position. Watch:

Images of masculinity as factor in war: New study reveals psychological roots of violence (Phys.org, 1 Oct 2025). Scientists who believe in logic know better than to build a case on one example: Elon Musk’s father. “According to research by the New York Times [note:liberal], Errol Musk is alleged to have abused five of his children and stepchildren—allegations he denies. But the debate highlights a fundamental pattern: violence as part of male self-definition.” They use the power of suggestion to beat a liberal drum: the myth of “toxic masculinity”— one of the Left’s favorite glittering generalities. The Left is having a fit over Pete Hegseth, Secretary of War, announced the end of DEI hires yesterday and is demanding physical fitness at all levels of the military. (Note to Darwinists: having a fit does not increase evolutionary fitness.)

Trump announces Pfizer deal he says will lower certain drug prices (Medical Xpress, 1 Oct 2025). Here’s one all Americans—including scientists—should feel good about. But wait for the sting:

In a report released Monday, independent Senator Bernie Sanders said that Trump’s efforts on the issue had “made headlines” but had done “little beyond that.”

The member of the Senate’s health committee said in his report that since Trump sent the letters over the summer, the prices of 87 drugs actually increased.

Why did the reporter stoop to quote Bernie Sanders? Why did they call him “independent” instead of “socialist” which he proudly declares himself to be? Why did they engage in card stacking and selective statistics?

Exclusive: RFK Jr cancelled mRNA research — but the US military is still funding it (Nature, 24 Sept 2025). Robert F. Kennedy Jr. used to be a darling of the Left, until he joined forces with the Trump administration to “Make America Healthy Again.” Watch the bias here: “For now, researchers can take comfort knowing that agencies outside Kennedy’s direct control are charting a different course.” Nature reporter Elie Dolgen is making a biased statement: the smart scientists (“researchers”) oppose what RFK Jr is doing or are getting around the Administration’s policies.

It’s not wokeness — it’s human rights (Nature Career Q&A, 24 Sept 2025). Of all the individuals Nature‘s editors could have picked to give an opinion about their career in science, they picked a minority “evolutionary ecologist” to preach DEI. This is so typical: only Leftists need apply for space in the journal. Can anyone point to an exception?

No strong evidence backs up Trump’s claims about Tylenol and autism (Nature, 23 Sept 2025). When the Trump administration’s medical leaders announced a possible risk of autism to pregnant mothers taking acetaminophen, and increased availability to parents of leucovorin for autistic children, Big Science dogpiled on cue, as if their boilerplate writers were prepared the night before. Ditto for other health announcements from Trump’s NIH, CDC, and HHS chiefs.

• Trump team backs an unproven drug for autism — but does it work? (Nature, 23 Sept 2025).
• Trump’s autism initiative embraces little-tested vitamin as a treatment (Science, 23 Sept 2025).
• What we know, and don’t, about the link between painkillers and autism (New Scientist, 23 Sept 2025). Who’s “we”?
• Tylenol is over 130 years old — why is it still the gold-standard painkiller? (Nature, 24 Sept 2025). A bit more humility here, admitting science doesn’t know how it works. But Trump is still wrong.
• RFK Jr. wants an answer to rising autism rates: Scientists say he’s ignoring some obvious ones (Medical Xpress, 25 Sept 2025).
• Babies can get hepatitis B at birth. Here’s why Trump is wrong about delaying the vaccine (The Conversation, 25 Sept 2025). But Trump is only giving parents a choice instead of a mandate.
• Is acetaminophen safe in pregnancy? Here’s what the science says. (Live Science, 26 Sept 2025). “the science…”—such hubris.

Why you don’t have to block roads or glue yourself to buildings to be a climate activist (The Conversation, 23 Sept 2025). My, my. Isn’t Bob Walley a gentleman. You can be a radical climate activist, he says, without spray-painting works of art, disrupting the public, and being a nuisance. Did you notice? Bob assumes that everybody reading The Conversation, a leftist soapbox masquerading as a science website, wants to be a climate activist. What an elitist, leftist attitude! Hey, “researcher” Walley, how about not being a climate activist? How about debating the science like Charlie Kirk did? How about focusing on your research, and being fair about it, by honestly considering the views on all sides of each question? Try this video, Bob.

Why scientists may be fearful of speaking out about Trump’s autism claims (The Conversation, 26 Sept 2025). Oh, the poor scientists. They’re afraid of big bad Trump. Admittedly, the causes of autism are complex and controversial. At least Trump and RFK Jr are making an effort to raise the standard of gold-medal science to learn why autism has seen a dramatic rise over the last two decades. But notice how Paidreg Murphy makes an assumption: all true scientists oppose Trump. They’re just afraid of speaking out. Why not encourage scientists to get involved and join the project to figure out the causes of autism, and make American healthy again?

Under Trump, NSF faces worst crises in its 75-year history (Science, 19 Sept 2025). Artwork of Trump like a mad captain driving a ship into the ground accompanies Jeffrey Mervis’s subtitle, “Trump directives have undermined a 75-year history of independence and threaten agency’s vaunted track record for excellence.” Now, honestly, don’t you think that an administration official like, say, Stephen Miller, might have a response to that claim? You won’t hear it from Mervis or from the AAAS leadership. The public largely approved of DOGE efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, but the money-grubbing AAAS wants all the taxpayer money they can get. They feel entitled to it.

Perhaps Jeffrey should read what a study found that was published in his hometown rag, Science, the same day (19 Sept). In “Partisan disparities in the funding of science in the United States,” Furnas et al found something counter-intuitive to Big Science’s lefty assumptions:

Despite occasional public skepticism of science, Republican lawmakers consistently provided robust funding, often exceeding Democrats, underscoring the importance of bipartisan investments in science and research.

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, Jeff. How about eliminating the scare tactics and working with the Trump administration on some of those “bipartisan investments” where healthy compromises can find solutions that maximize the benefits to the most stakeholders?

Many more examples could be added to this list. As long as Big Science and Big Media align themselves with Leftists (Democrats and Socialists in the USA, or globalists and Darwinian materialists around the world), they are damaging public trust and hurting themselves. Healthy debate, recognizing and eliminating biases, and questioning assumptions should be part and parcel of science.