When science becomes politicized it stops being science.
December 8, 2009
Scientific research is based on the idea of review, so others can reproduce your results. Peer review should not be about insuring a pre-determined outcome. It certainly shouldn’t be about intimidation of reporters. Is shouldn’t be about politicians defining what the “real science” is. Especially when they’re repeatedly wrong about it. Who really should be angry? Scientists.
Comments
6 Responses to “When science becomes politicized it stops being science.”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
I seem to remember making the same argument when the Bush Administration asked for it’s third review of the science because they weren’t happy with the answers.
Thing is, there’s a big difference between politicians acting like politicians, and scientists acting like politicians.
There are a lot of scientists that are angry at the corruption uncovered in the CRU leak, but the politicians and media, as a whole, do not care. Eisenhower once warned against a science establishment over-reliant on government funding; he gave that warning in the next breaths after warning against the famous military-industrial complex. It’s sad that few remember it.
Aero51 – You nailed it. And now we’re seeing proof of what happens when Scientists accept government funding with the disclosure that NASA is also apparently manipulating data to reach a government/NWO conclusion. At least I assume NASA must be hiding something, otherwise why wouldn’t they comply with the Freedom of Information Act?
Steve, are you expecting me to believe the “Shocked, shocked I am to find out gambling is going on here” line of this? Have you never experienced even second hand the struggle to obtain higher degrees (Masters and PhDs)? Or not witnessed tenure battles? Hell, even the battle of higher education types for the last smear of brie at a party can be fraught with high political tension.
This is why when the whole “scientists live in ivory towers” argument comes up people who deal with them snicker. And as Aeros51 points out, it isn’t exactly a new problem.
We’re not talking about jockeying for a tenured chair here, were talking about actual scientists corrupting actual science here. Yes there’s human nature, and no one likes seeing the sausage being made, but frankly that’s a horribly meager excuse, both for scientists and politicians. Just because a human endeavor has upon occasion prompted base and dishonest instincts, gives no one excuse for wallowing in them. Frankly, up until now I reserved my skepticism for the politicians selling snake-oil remedies; I didn’t think major players in the AGW debate were actually doing the statistical equivalent of pulling numbers out of their arse.
Related tangentially to the subject of this thread: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2009/12/peer_review.html