Replies

You make a number of good points. It should be noted, however, that a good many scientists do speak out against the politicization of science and against junk science in general. Unfortunately, what they have to say is not terribly sensational, and it's sensation that sells. Or it doesn't fit the storyline that the reporter has already worked out, so it's downplayed or not reported at all.

The website Junkscience.com is a useful corrective. Michael Fumento is an excellent science writer who spends a lot of time debunking an amazing amount of nonsense, and his webite, www.fumento.com, is outstanding. (He posts his hatemail, which is always good for a laugh).

Regarding the past, the junk was always out there, it's just that the nonsense has been forgotten for the most part. If you're really interested, I can Freepmail you a reading list.

Ah, I really appreciate Fumento, ran into his work with his "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", gee, more than a decade ago. Think I picked up an excerpt from the book in The American Spectator, not exactly mainstream or huge exposure, but that's hardly his fault.

I'd have to recheck his CV but I don't think he is a "scientist" by the usual standard, more of a reporter that can engage in critical thinking. I may very well be wrong about his background.

Now I know the MSM will never give equal billing but I think it's incumbent on science itself to clean up it's house. That's not to say that there aren't some that have strong disagreements, and probably more than don't speak out because of fear of losing funding, but peer review needs to be opened up to critics, not just the choir.

Agree absolutely that it's always been there, it just seems to be that science has appeared to become more agenda driven than in the past. If that's not correct then I think it would be a good thing for the scientific community to come out with a strong statement repudiating agenda driven science entirely. I'd still be skeptical, but I'd be willing to wait and see.