Posted on 01/15/2006 3:00:30 PM PST by Mr_Moonlight
MOST of us think that science is based on observable fact, free of political influence. But as Tom Bethell shows in "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science," the virus of political correctness has infected science, too, invariably leading to the government trough.
In order to pump up government funding, the scientific community invents "crises" which can only be resolved with massive infusions of taxpayer funds. Hypocritically, the wealthy adherents of political correctness happily rob the poor to pay the rich.
California's Hollywood-studded...
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
This sounds like an interesting book as to how science has become so politicized over the years that it isn't about 'finding truth' anymore, but about obtaining and sustaining government grant money amongst scientists.
[...science has become so politicized over the years that it isn't about 'finding truth' anymore, but about obtaining and sustaining government grant money amongst scientists.]
This is something of a distortion. There have always been scientists who reached biased conclusions based on pleasing their benefactors and there always will be. It is no worse now than it has been in the past.
I haven't read the book yet, have you? Does it mention the global crisis of running out of DeCaf ?? /grin
Yes, you're right .... Galileo Galilei comes to mind
Haven't read the thread yet, so perhaps someone has mentioned it ... but "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton factually illustrates this on the environmental side of the picture. The book is a real eye-opener, especially as it's scrupulously footnoted and sourced.
this can also apply to funding for research:
A Porsche 911 for AIDS, a 10 speed for Prostate Cancer
According to a chart from the National Institute of Health (which can be viewed in its entirety here), the NIH will spend an estimated $3.6 billion on AIDS related research for the current fiscal year, rising to $4 billion in FY 2003. In comparison the NIH will spend $360 million on prostate cancer this year, rising to $400 million in FY 2003.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, 31,000 men died of prostate cancer in 2000, and every year 2.3 million men are diagnosed with the disease. In contrast, 14,802 people died of AIDS in 1999 while only 45,000 were diagnosed with the disease that year. If we use the money figures for FY 2002 and the number of new diagnoses just mentioned we find that the NIH spends $157 on each new prostate cancer diagnosis versus $80,000 on each new AIDS diagnosis. Or let's put it another way. Divide the money by the deaths and the US government spends $243,210 trying (and failing) to prevent each AIDS death - while only spending $11,613 attempting to save the life of a man who dies from prostate cancer. Sources: CDC: Table 53. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) cases, according to age at diagnosis, sex, detailed race, and Hispanic origin: United States, selected years 1985-2000. HIV Fastfacts. Prostate Disease Fastfacts. Gary S. Becker of The Hoover Institute pointed out in an article appearing in the April 19, 1999 issue of Businessweek: "Research on AIDS has been much more generously funded by the federal government during the past decade than has research on breast and prostate cancer and other diseases that kill many more people."
One could in fact argue that the federal government is caving in to intimidation at the expense of research in diseases that affect more people yet lack the theatrical antics of a misguided yet trendy advocacy group. It's unfortunate given the fact that every man - straight or gay, monogamous or polyamorous will eventually face prostate cancer should he be lucky to live long enough. A man can avoid catching AIDS. He can't avoid prostate cancer.
i wouldn't disagree about politics affecting science; i know it does. but i'm skeptical about what your are saying about only intepretations as opposed to results being reported. i don't read meteorology journals, so i don't know for sure, but most scientific journals require results to be reported. if they didn't, anyone could report anything. (obtaining data sets, however, might be a lot more difficult.)
the real politics comes in with the funding and with the selection of articles for publication. certain studies will be funded, and others won't. but that's the nature of running studies at taxpayers expense--the representatives of the taxpayers, along with the executive branch, determine funding priorities. (and there's nothing really wrong with that.)
the second political sifting comes when peers review and then decide whether or not to accept an article for publication. however, there are usually ways to get around political obstacles, e.g., by submitting to less-exalted publications.
Unfortunately, if anyone's abusing science here, it's Bethell himself, and he's making us all look bad in doing so. In addition to being a tireless advocate for Intelligent Design, he has advocated such spurious ideas as Duesberg's theories on AIDS and Van Flandern's futile attempts at refuting relativity. Bethell is only helping the opposition, by making the left's "Republicans are anti-science and conservatives are stupid" meme look more convincing to the undecided. We can't let the scientific illiteracy of a few drag us all down.
The nation that invented the Nase-o-Graph can't be held down.
Yes, he is. And by doing this, he is diminishing the credibility of those who are responsibly making valid complaints!
...he has advocated such spurious ideas as Duesberg's theories on AIDS...
Well, the importance I see with Duesberg was that he highlighted the problem of how questions and opposing hypotheses are overlooked in modern science.
An important part of the review that wasn't posted is the following:
[...]Bethell occasionally plays fast and loose with facts. He claims, for example, that "careful U.S. studies" show that a heterosexual can acquire AIDS only after a minimum of 1,000 contacts; in other words, a one-night stand isn't enough. But he doesn't cite any of these studies to support this highly dubious claim. [...]If this is what Bethell actually claimed, then he obviously does not understand the material about which he writes. But then again, it's taken right from Duesberg.
He's another embarrassment.
The classic example of science corrupted by politics is the fiasco of Trofim Lysenko and his fabricated genetics to please Stalin.
The science historian Conway Zirkle wrote some excellent books about the corruption of science by politics.
the stalinist system of science was truly awful. it wasn't even really science, because ideology always over-rode empirical results.
Excellent points. No doubt there is corruption and dishonesty in science just as in any other field but the process of the scientific method and peer review at least attempts to curb the dishonesty. The fact that we are aware of some of the bad science is only further evidence that the process works- sometimes it may take some time but the truth eventually comes out.
The difference is that it's not foolish "benefactors" who pick up the tab for this modern day alchemy, it's taxpayers. And it's not just about money, but power and control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.