Talk:Politicization of science

I suppose getting 'abortion causes cancer' on this list is about as likely as pigs flying, right? --Gulik3 17:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a vandal may succeed in getting on, but keeping it on the list is actually slightly less likely than flying pigs. --Ben _Talk 17:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Additional source material - Smithsonian accused of altering exhibit.

WASHINGTON - The Smithsonian Institution toned down an exhibit on climate change in the Arctic for fear of angering Congress and the Bush administration, says a former administrator at the museum.

--Mtur 15:28, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't make one-sided quotes:

• Smithsonian officials denied that political concerns influenced the exhibit, saying the changes were made for reasons of objectivity. And some scientists who consulted on the project said nothing major was omitted. [ibid]

Just because somebody accuses the administration of politicizing science doesn't make it true. A false accusation could be the actual politicization.

If there is uncertainty in "breaking news", good science would indicate exactly how much uncertainty there was. Hiding the uncertainty to score a political point is precisely the sort of politicization this article is addressing.

Science is supposed to be about what we know to be true, and what we are still trying to find out about. Claiming that preliminary findings are rock solid is a kind of cheating (see junk science). --Ed Poor 20:09, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Accumulation of DDT

but it is accumulated in bodies through the food chain effecting especially birds

Got a source for this? One that says how much accumulates, and how much harm that accumulation causes, I hope. --Ed Poor 20:05, 22 May 2007 (EDT)