Big Science Has Prostituted Its Core Mission
December 18, 2017
While individual scientists do pristine work, the major institutions of science and media have become propaganda arms for leftist causes.
Big Science Sullies Its Reputation
March 4, 2017
The public will lose confidence in science if its institutions continue to side with the political left.
Climate Flap Echoes Political Divide
February 8, 2017
Reactions to a whistleblower's statements raise the possibility that the climate-science consensus is largely political, not empirical.
Big Science Blind to Its Political Bias
December 27, 2016
More evidence that institutional scientists, journal editors and reporters live in an echo chamber that betrays their ideals of unbiased knowledge generation.
Big Science Joins US Democrat Party Campaign
August 7, 2016
Science journals and reporters—even those outside the US—position themselves to defeat Trump and elect Clinton to promote their leftist causes.
"Political" Science Threatens Historic American Values
July 3, 2016
Take any issue on the political scene, and you will find the scientific elites cheering for the left side.
Scientists as Sex Counselors
August 22, 2014
To what extent should scientists presume to offer advice about sexual matters?
August 22, 2012
If science is supposed to be apolitical, reporters and journal editors are not remembering their duty to stay neutral.
Scientific Institutions Engage in Leftist Advocacy
July 26, 2012
For an enterprise supposedly as unpolitical and bias-free as science classically is supposed to be, conservatism is surprisingly rare.
Brave New Chimeras
July 31, 2011
Tampering with human embryonic stem cells has been at the forefront of ethical debates for a decade. Behind it, though, lurks an even more alarming prospect: the creation of human-animal hybrids. As with embryos, the appeal has been to improve human health. But ethicists ask if there is any benefit worth blurring the line between humans and animals. Pro-chimera advocates admit there is a certain “disgust” factor that could arouse public anxiety, and agree that experimentation would need to be regulated. But who would regulate the regulators, and on what moral grounds?