Changes
The existence of nonscientific motives does not tell us which side is right; only careful consideration of the evidence can do that.
'''Politicized science''' is considered a problem by people on all parts of the [[political spectrum]], yet they can rarely agree on whether a particular scientific issue has become politicized. All parties to the dispute agree that when political power, as of a government or church, is used to prevent scientific matters from being investigated or discussed objectively, this constitutes politicization. Even scientific bodies have been known to suppress results or theories which contradict the scientific mainstream.
[[Sallie Baliunas]] wrote
* The existence of nonscientific motives does not tell us which side is right; only careful consideration of the evidence can do that.<ref> [http://www.reason.com/news/show/32245.html Full of Hot Air: A climate alarmist takes on "criminals against humanity" - Reason Magazine]</ref>
In the English-speaking world, conservatives and liberals agree that the Galileo and Lamarck episodes were both examples of politicization. The church was wrong to suppress Galileo's arguments against the perfect spherical shape of the moon (he saw proof of mountains) or against the idea that all heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth (he discovered the [[Jovian satellites]]). The Soviet Union was wrong to enshrine [[Lamarckism]] as official evolutionary doctrine.
