Politicization of science

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DanielPulido (Talk | contribs) at 04:07, December 12, 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Politicization of science is the misuse of science to serve a political agenda. It occurs when interested parties assert as true, claims that are unsubstantiated or even known to be false, or when scientific facts or principles are suppressed because they contradict ideology.

  • ... the political process seems to have captured and often corrupted the integrity of the scientific research that is used to formulate policy, and inform policy decisions.[1]
  • It is a true perversion of the scientific process to find that skepticism is no longer welcome or accepted in scientific debate. [1]
  • Many modern AGW supporters believe that insinuating possible sources of bias is sufficient to exempt one from having to actually critique their opponents’ methods and findings. [ibid]

The two best known cases in the history of science concern the church's suppression of Galileo, whose findings were finally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church centuries later; and the Lysenko episode in the Soviet Union. The current top controversies are global warming and the theory of evolution.

Homosexuality

  • In 1999, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a report on child sex abuse saying that sexual relations between children and adults are "less harmful than believed" and might actually "be positive for willing children." How could trained psychologists, let alone anyone in their right mind, suggest that sex between adults and children could be positive for the children? Luckily there was a huge uproar throughout society about this absurd conclusion. As a result the APA backed down and acknowledged that there was a serious problem with the study and that they should have been more careful in publishing the report in the first place. [2]

Global warming

Recently, in a partial victory for science over politics, the UN's World Health Organization reversed a 30-year ban on DDT, but without admitting that the ban had been politically motivated.

Pesticide use

The best documented case in American history is the banning of DDT immediately after a hearing in which it was shown to be safe when used as directed. In small quantities, it can even be eaten by human beings - it's not a poison like arsenic or cyanide but it is accumulated in bodies through the food chain effecting especially birds (see closer article DDT). The new EPA administrator disregarded the hearing results and unilaterally banned DDT. The U.S. ban put pressure on foreign governments to stop using DDT for mosquito control and ultimately led to a worldwide rise in the number of malaria cases; thwarting efforts to control the spread of the disease (see Malaria epidemic).

Many other chemicals have been considered dangerous and banned for political reasons, often involving health scares. Also nuclear power and even the internal combustion engine have been targeted by partisans using junk science. Most recently, environmentalists refer to global warming to get internal combustion engine banned (see IPCC Summary for Policymakers). [2]

John Daly wrote:

  • ...we are dealing with a level of political corruption in these sciences which have abandoned the principles of open debate within science - indeed abandoned scientific method itself - and become more like a medieval religion, treating all critics as heretics to be censored and vilified. The disgraceful treatment of dissenting views, not just those of Lomborg, points to a serious disease of intolerance - paranoia even - of legitimate criticism, even to the extent of using the peer review system (which works passably well in other sciences) as an instrument of outright censorship against any critics. It is an intolerable situation in which the journals themselves are partly to blame. [3]

Climate

Fred Singer wrote:

  • The chief US negotiator Richard Benedick bragged that he was able to pull off the Montreal accord without any backing from science. I quote from his book Ozone Diplomacy: "Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the treaty was [that it] rested on scientific theories rather than on firm data." [4]

References

  1. Michael Crichton, Science Policy in the 21st Century
  2. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers