Why politicized science is dangerous

American Thinker ^ | 26 Apr, 2021 | Rob Jenkins

[MtnClimber]

Eugencs, "climate change," and now the pandemic all show the dangers.

First, a confession: I borrowed this title from an essay by the late Michael Crichton, appended to his 2004 novel State of Fear. I’m also going to borrow rather liberally from both the essay and the novel itself, since I doubt most of you have read it or intend to, even though you should. I will attempt to provide a brief synopsis, one relevant to both his point and mine, without giving too much away (you know, in case you do want to read it).

The politicization and commercialization of science is something of a recurring theme in many of Crichton’s best-known novels,

SNIP

Perhaps you have guessed by now that the theory in question was eugenics, which postulated “a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race.” As we all now know -- well, perhaps not all of us -- eugenics turned out not to be a science at all but rather a grotesque pseudo-science. “Its history is so dreadful,” notes Crichton, “and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing, that it is now rarely discussed.”

Of course, AT readers recognize that this thoroughly deplorable and utterly discredited theory is still alive and flourishing in at least one American institution. Among its earliest and most vocal proponents was Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood specifically to carry out the goal of the eugenics movement.

[MtnClimber]

We must believe the pseudo science! This is not just a crooked politician saying that communism will cure these crisis situations, it is the pseudo science we paid for.

[jerod]

IV....

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite...

Partial Transcript of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961)

[dsrtsage]

“ now that the theory in question was eugenics, which postulated “a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race.” Watching leftism and their little burn loot murder and felchi-fa armies pretty much elevates it from theory that unquestionable fact

[Little Ray]

‘Science’ has been politicized since days of royal magicians and alchemists. We need to learn to ignore them or to put them in place, along with their sponsors.

[rlmorel]

In one sentence: Politicized “Science” is not “Science”, it is advocacy.

[ConservativeInPA]

So what to do? Rational people would look at the causes and then propose solutions. Politicized science is a tool of power. It works because ignorant people believe in it or people sympathize with the desired outcome of powerful. The former simply want safety. The latter want power or to be aligned with power. Both of these are part of human nature.

It is good to know what there is a third category of people. They are the non-believers and generally do not want power, or they desire power to be used in a righteous manner. Objectively, we need to move more people into the third category so that they constitute a majority. That battle is up hill. It has become a cultural problem where establishment and institutional forces try their best to emasculate boys to make them fearful. It is an education problem where illiterates teach children in government schools. Yes, that is to say, the vast majority of public school teachers are functionally illiterate, particularly when it comes to mathematics and science. It is a problem of godlike arrogance, rooted in the belief that they can thwart God himself, or stated in less religious terms, they can thwart nature.

There are other forces at work, but it good to know what there only needs to a majority that doesn't buy into the politicization of science to solve this problem. May I suggest that the group of people most easily manipulated into a new majority are the fearful. That recognizes other facts about the nature of man. There will always be opposing powers and people will always be pawns of the opposing powers. Yes, it is down right cynical, but we need to manipulate the pawns so that the correct side, our side wins.

Give these people something else to fear.

[Pollard]

[Jan_Sobieski]

+1

[who_would_fardels_bear]

My understanding is that eugenics was bad, not because it was pseudo-science, but because it was just plain immoral.

Dog breeding and cat breeding worked. It would seem that human breeding would also work. It seems it already has in that humans who migrated to Europe and Asia have distinctive differences from humans who stayed in Africa.

There is now research that humans are on average getting dumber and weaker because of the lower infant mortality rate and overall better health and sanitary conditions that keep people alive who would otherwise die from physical and mental deficiencies before passing on their genes.

There are certain things we should not do even if they result in an outcome that is thought by some to be "scientifically beneficial". For example, even if the use of fetal tissue would aid in scientific research, we still shouldn't do it as it requires the desecration of human bodies.

[rktman]

Perhaps the author underestimated his reading audience. State of Fear is an excellent book. Very relevant.