Nature Displays Leftist Ideology

For a British scientific journal ostensibly devoted to nature (think: horses, trees, cells, atoms, stars), Nature gets downright political sometimes.  Usually, a liberal position is presented without rebuttal or balance – often intruding into American politics.  Some recent examples:

1. Military defense:  In the May 3 issue, a Nature editorial attacked the American missile defense system, calling it “hard to defend.”  The editorial flouts, “the system is sham, as well as a menace to foreign relations” and “no more money should be wasted on it.”  It criticizes the money the Bush administration has expended “in pursuit of this myopic vision.”  King George III must be shouting “Hear, hear!” from the grave.
2. Global warming:  Also in the May 3 issue, Nature praised a rock group for preaching the global warming message.  “Rock ‘n’ roll and the movies join the fight against climate change,” it trumpeted, with ultra-liberal Hollywood activist Rob Reiner prominently displayed in a photo.  Al Gore was also rockin’ with the editors in this piece.
3. Stem cells:  Justin Burley got free rein to preach against the conservatism and religion in some book reviews about embryonic stem cell research.  He let the sinners have it right between the eyes:
   

   The principal themes that surface in these three books are now familiar.  First, there has been a mischievous use of facts by opponents of embryonic stem-cell research.  The wilful misunderstanding of important differences between adult and embryonic stem cells has skewed the moral debate and stalled progress.  Second, researchers using adult and embryonic stem cells face major technical challenges, some of which may be insurmountable, and it remains doubtful whether either stem-cell type will be the medical panacea that some have proposed.  Third, scientists operate in a fiercely competitive environment – reputations stand or fall on the basis of publications and the grant money required to get them.  Against this background, it is unsurprising that frauds have been committed and that sloppy science has seeped into some top-tier journals.  Finally, it is a fact that every day, people around the world become ill, suffer and die.  Despite this, many misguided citizens seek to use governments to impose on others their own particular metaphysical conceptions of the sacredness of human life.  No essentially religious view should dominate policy in a modern democratic society.

   Yet if the promise is doubtful (10/31/2006), and if the research tempts fraud because of motivations for money and fame, is there not a place for disputing its morality by a public that is being asked to pay for it? (see 12/16/2006 entry).  In Burley’s view, only those on the liberal pro-ES stem-cell side can claim morality: “Herold does a fine job of bringing to the fore the way that religiosity continues to polarize the nation with respect to all matters concerning the moral status of early human life.”

In Nature, the blame is always on the religious – whoever they are.  Only they have an agenda.  Only they polarize the culture.  The assumption is that scientists are neutral and unbiased on these and all other moral questions (but see 09/10/2006).
    It needs no documentation to point out that Nature is 100% pro-Darwinian evolution and never gives anything but contempt to intelligent design (e.g., 07/06/2006).

What’s Nature doing inserting itself into American politics and values?  We occasionally have to demonstrate the liberal-leftist bias in Big Science and academia lest any think the evolution wars are strictly intellectual disputes over science vs. religion (see also 08/16/2006).  Just like their founding fathers (03/04/2004 commentary and 07/20/2005 commentary), the editors of Nature are shamelessly partisan.  In the editors’ eyes, a conservative president can do no virtue, and a liberal politician can do no vice.  We could count on the fingers of one horse the number of times Nature has given fair treatment to a conservative point of view.  We’ve demonstrated often that the pro-Darwin, pro-leftist, anti-God ideologies go hand in hand (e.g., 09/02/2004).
    This is not meant as any disparagement on the contributing scientists who submit their papers to Nature honestly, many of whom are just doing their job and presenting their findings as fairly and accurately as possible.  But controlling the editorial page and the book reviews and the news articles is one way the lefties at Nature maintain the false impression that science is on their side.  Notice how brazen they have been of late.
    If you are still under the impression that Nature Inc. is a fair, balanced, unbiased, unprejudiced, impartial, objective, neutral group of professional smart people only concerned with presenting facts to a candid world, get over it.  Big Science as illustrated by Nature and Science (08/05/2004) is like Big Labor, Big Education and other PACs.  Despite the views of their rank-and-file membership, the leaders are typically far-leftist ideologues, devoted to pushing their views and marginalizing anyone who disagrees.

Now, it is fine to have opinions and exercise freedom to express them.  But Nature and its comrades present themselves as scientific publications.  They play off the public perception of science as this idealized paragon of objectivity.  Maybe objectivity existed in Bacon’s vision, but in real life, it hasn’t lived up to that ideal, especially since Darwin.  In real lab science, the only way to prevent runaway bias is to have competition – another scientist eager to disprove your theory.  Why, then, is there no competition of ideas in these journals when it comes to politics and ethics?
    It’s odd that materialism is dominant in the editorial pages, when we argue in our online book that one cannot even do science without believing in absolutes.  One must believe in truth and honesty.  Try evolving those from hydrogen.  For the British elitists at the Royal Society and Nature to moralize about the rest of us, when they believe our minds are products of undirected material causes, is a royal non-sequitur (see 09/22/2004).

There are many good science papers in Nature, but never any suggestion that a U.S. conservative (politically or theologically) has anything worthwhile to say.  Bush-bashing is fine, Gore-praising is better.  If Nature reflected a free marketplace of ideas, surely one would expect to find an occasional editorial by a conservative, especially since conservatives represent a majority in many communities.  Instead, it’s always pro-abortion, pro-ES stem cells, pro-Darwin, pro-Democratic party, pro-big government, pro-handouts, logical positivism, naturalism, free sex, pro-UN, pro-unlimited funding for whatever scientists want, and anti-conservative positions on these issues, week after week (e.g., 09/27/2004, 11/17/2005, 07/06/2006, 07/31/2006).
    Face this diagnosis so that you can feed on Nature properly, with large supplies of vitamins, laxatives and emetics at hand.