Politicization of science

Politicization of science occurs when interested parties assert a certain fact or principle as true, even when it remains unproven or is even manifestly untrue.

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).

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]