Difference between revisions of "Politicization of science"
(misuse of science to serve a political agenda) |
(current top controversies are global warming and the theory of evolution.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Politicization of science''' is the misuse of science to serve a political agenda. | '''Politicization of science''' is the misuse of science to serve a political agenda. | ||
It occurs when interested parties assert a certain fact or principle as true, even when it remains unproven or is even manifestly untrue. It occurs when scientific facts or principles are suppressed because they contradict ideology. | It occurs when interested parties assert a certain fact or principle as true, even when it remains unproven or is even manifestly untrue. It occurs when scientific facts or principles are suppressed because they contradict ideology. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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]]. | ||
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]]). | 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]]). | ||
Revision as of 12:46, March 11, 2008
Politicization of science is the misuse of science to serve a political agenda. It occurs when interested parties assert a certain fact or principle as true, even when it remains unproven or is even manifestly untrue. It occurs when scientific facts or principles are suppressed because they contradict ideology.
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.
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). [1]
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. [1]
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." [2]
References
- ↑ http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers
