Example of what I consider to be a true scientific conspiracy

I've often seen the phrase "scientific conspiracy" bandied about on this board, usually in the context of "the big bad government" trying to poison or kill people (despite an annually increasing population), or relating to doctors wanting to keep people sick (despite the annual decrease in most chronic diseases in those under 50 years).

Though I don't think most issues here constitute realistic conspiracies, there is one issue that I most definitely think is a conspiracy in the truest sense of the word: the conspiracy of ignorant politicians trying to wedge their way into science.

Science, in most situations, exists outside the realm of politics. There isn't really much gray area (outside of medical science), and most data is fairly binary: things either work or they don't, theories make sense or they don't, or something is true or it isn't. Politicizing science only sensationalizes and distorts data, often for political ends. This is why America is dropping further and further behind in science education: politicians have managed to connect the broad term "stem cells" with images of babies being murdered by cold-hearted scientists in some deep, dark laboratory.

The reason I thought to post this is this recent article demonstrating one politician's (a Republican, surprise surprise) personal quest to quash any sort of scientific dialogue. He, and many of his colleagues, don't seem to understand that communication and intellectual discourse, often at conferences, is vital to the advancement of science. The scientists at the NCI fully complied with conflict of interest reporting and received no personal pay from these conferences, and yet Senator Grassley would paint them as a group of people hell-bent on undermining the United States research goals.

I would be most interested in hearing the opinions of others (yes, even those who think I'm overreacting) on this issue. Personally, I think a complete divorce of science from Congress would work wonders for our nation. Give the NIH and related facilities an essentially blank check, cut funding from bioweapons and offensive science programs, and let the fields advance.

the conspiracy of ignorant politicians trying to wedge their way into science.

I'd change that to ignorant people trying to wedge their way into science. It's the majority of people having "opinions" that, from their perspective, just overrule any number of experts and professionals in that specific field.

An example of ignorant, fear mongering, emotion based arguments against science is the recent problems here in Canada of parents trying to remove and ban the use of wi-fi in schools because it's "making their kids sick". Of course they'll find some fringe "experts" and some pseudoscientific moron with some title and present their case as if it had merit in the first place, when it should have just been tossed aside. Instead, it's causing a stir in some places, resulting in bans / removals, and even making it's way into parliament.

The worst thing about this is the 'neutral' party if you will, of random people that don't even have the slightest idea of what they're making claims about and will just agree with these stupid claims because they have a dislike of government, science or technology etc.

Skeptic North link, really a prime example of what I'm getting at.

reply to post by Whyhi


I couldn't agree with you more. I also had no idea about the wifi issue, which strikes me as simultaneously hilarious and frightening, given the extent to which parents are fighting this.

It's as if logic and reason are lost on some people. I think what stuns me the most is watching things like Jenny McCarthy arguing against vaccines. I wish I could find a copy of the show (I saw it on television and can't remember what show it was...) but she is literally handed several sets of data showing that there are zero cases of autism linked to anything in vaccines, and she simply gives a tearful expression and begins parroting something like, "But children aren't statistics!" Nevermind the fact that she has no evidence, haha.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I think that your identification of a serious issue here is spot on: politicians don't have scientific backgrounds and aren't experts in scientific fields, yet they make policy decisions related to science. A politician with a law degree simply isn't qualified to make important decisions about scientific policies like those related to environmental issues, the public space program, or life sciences research. An extension of this problem is the fact that the ongoing public discussion of political issues is not an suitable forum for scientific discussions. Sound bites and headlines that the average person can understand are not an acceptable way to present scientific issues.

Unfortunately, I think that your proposed solution of simply separating science from politics is unrealistic. The lines between political issues and scientific issues are not clear, and this will be increasingly true as science and technology become more and more relevant to all aspects of our world.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

I think that your identification of a serious issue here is spot on: politicians don't have scientific backgrounds and aren't experts in scientific fields, yet they make policy decisions related to science. A politician with a law degree simply isn't qualified to make important decisions about scientific policies like those related to environmental issues, the public space program, or life sciences research. An extension of this problem is the fact that the ongoing public discussion of political issues is not an suitable forum for scientific discussions. Sound bites and headlines that the average person can understand are not an acceptable way to present scientific issues.

Absolutely, I agree. Just like I couldn't even begin to fathom the legal issues involved in federal tax codes or international trade, politicians (for the most part) don't understand the intricacies of research.

Unfortunately, I think that your proposed solution of simply separating science from politics is unrealistic. The lines between political issues and scientific issues are not clear, and this will be increasingly true as science and technology become more and more relevant to all aspects of our world.

Sadly, I agree. In an ideal world, those of us in science would be given grants and then would be left to our own devices. It's unlikely to ever really work this way, as much as most of us would love, it, hah.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Make every politician take mandatory classes on skepticism, reason and logic.

Let's countdown until the anti-science / anti-skeptic people that were mentioned in the OP come to spread their gospels while we're at it.

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Make every politician take mandatory classes on skepticism, reason and logic.

If only...haha

I'm sure if it were funded by the oil industry, the entire Congress would show up.

Although I think you are spot on, I don't think any skeptic class would eliminate these kinds of fraud.

The main problem is that ( Especially in the US ) elections are a popularity contest.
The one who is the most popular gets the most votes. I'll bet your republican senator has a lot of Christians in his state and probably is one himself.

Most people are just plain ignorant, and politicians know that and use it whenever it could get them help them get more popular.

Example :

A massive amount of US citizens voted for Obama. Nothing wrong there, I would have probably done the same.
A lot of them voted ( most of all ) for an empty phrase. Change ! Yes we can.

Well things have changed, but not the things that are actually in need of change IMHO.

My 2 cents.

I think people should only be allowed to vote when they can proof they understand the differences and they and can explain why they agree or disagree .

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

i can agree with you only partially yes, Fundamental Science must be beyond the miserable agenda as money & clowns like politicians. but scientists must be ruled by determinate Laws to stop against steps for holiest ideas sake with Hellicious methods

There isn't really much gray area (outside of medical science), and most data is fairly binary: things either work or they don't

no correct completely: consideration like "works or not" is perfectly unacceptable for Real Scientist because most solutions have many unpredictable side - effects which could be well-detected & explained far not in no Time

politicians have managed to connect the broad term "stem cells" with images of babies being murdered by cold-hearted scientists in some deep, dark laboratory.

secret labs have been actual reality, mostly for deepest brain's studies. temptation to lift away any "miserable" rules about high value of human life from selves was & is too irresistible for many researchers + those explorations always have been sexy well-funded

I'm a little reluctant to think of 'science' (what can we say? the scientific community?) as particularly pure. it's been my experience that much science is done through universities, which are supercharged with politics; and of course much science is funded by the gummint.
when younger I liked to think of scientists as being like Mr. Spock; purely logical, not influenced by our human emotions. fact is, science folks are human like the rest of us, and they have their fads and their feuds and their agendas. pure research, for example, needs funding, and the funders usually want some motivation. there are very, very few projects done solely for scientific curiosity.
Ben Stein's recent documentary 'Expelled' shows university professors suffering career setbacks if they questioned evolution (same is true of global warming). in science as life, it's easier to go along to get along.

I heard a preacher say 'I love science, but some of the scientists worry me.'

Originally posted by works4dhs
I'm a little reluctant to think of 'science' (what can we say? the scientific community?) as particularly pure. it's been my experience that much science is done through universities, which are supercharged with politics; and of course much science is funded by the gummint.

Spend some time in your local university's chemistry and biology departments, especially in the research labs. Politics, even at the university level, don't really factor in beyond who gets tenured and who doesn't (and even that is mostly a popularity contest anymore).

there are very, very few projects done solely for scientific curiosity.

Absolutely not true. Look into the sorts of niches scientists put themselves into. In every department, there are people with insanely specific specialties. Just in the lab I worked in, we had a "circadian genetics expert", whose only papers were in that tiny field, a metalloprotease enzymologist, and so on. These aren't fields that are entered because of "fads" or "feuds". They are entered out of curiosity and a lack of research.

Ben Stein's recent documentary 'Expelled'

Stop right there. Have you ever looked into just how incredibly biased and blatantly wrong this film is? Here is a good list of some articles showing how the film lies, omits information, and mischaracterizes statements by professors, researchers, and university heads.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

works4dhs said prime Idea which is good expressed by russian proverb:

Music is always ordered by who pays

Politics, even at the university level, don't really factor in beyond who gets tenured and who doesn't (and even that is mostly a popularity contest anymore).

if to say more clearly, politicians decide Nothing because they're only puppet show, but corps really fund different exploration to get some pennies as soon as possible that really rapes True Science.

reply to post by SarK0Y


Private business contributes cents to the NIH's dollars, really. Saying private companies influence research isn't really an accurate statement.

Also, SarKOY...otkuda vi? kakoj gorod?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Private business contributes cents to the NIH's dollars, really. Saying private companies influence research isn't really an accurate statement.

oh, stop, please, there many experiments are desperately expensive, & who can throw some centies out for? fist & foremost, researchers is being forced to find godfathers. who could they be with highest probability? no doubt, gov. departments & corpies; out of gov. deps, most likeliest are military & cia-like guyZ_z

Also, SarKOY...otkuda vi? kakoj gorod?

Everyone, who must know it, has known or knows it. For others, i'm in nowhere &, say truly, that location is far not so absurd how it sounds

Fascism is capitalism in decay" ~Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

yes, Lenin was Devilicous clever human.. Brilliant
-------------------
My respect to Ye & the best wishes.

Originally posted by SarK0Y

oh, stop, please, there

many experiments are desperately expensive, & who can throw some centies out for? fist & foremost, researchers is being forced to find godfathers. who could they be with highest probability? no doubt, gov. departments & corpies; out of gov. deps, most likeliest are military & cia-like guyZ_z

Luckily, you're mistaken. The American system is no the same as the Russian system, full of benefactors and oligarchs.

The vast majority of grants and monies for research come from the NIH, NSF, and DOD. An annual NIH grant for one million or more dollars isn't uncommon, even in moderate-sized labs.

yes, Lenin was Devilicous clever human.. Brilliant

-------------------
My respect to Ye & the best wishes.

Off-topic, for sure, but Lenin was a great man. Had his ideals been held up by the people, the party, and most notably Stalin (a horrible man who ruined the nation), we wouldn't be in the mess we're currently in.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Luckily, you're mistaken. The American system is no the same as the Russian system

misconception.. there're no about russian/american system, there're about human Nature is the same in the Russia, USA or wherever else. some humans have lusted after Power & Nothing can stop'em, but Death. to've Power needs to get most Advanced techs; to study human body, mostly brain, is most prime way to get new techs; to research human brain with legal methods is too expensive.. any conclusions?

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Luckily, you're mistaken. The American system is no the same as the Russian system

misconception.. there're no about russian/american system, there're about human Nature is the same in the Russia, USA or wherever else. some humans have lusted after Power & Nothing can stop'em, but Death. to've Power needs to get most Advanced techs; to study human body, mostly brain, is most prime way to get new techs; to research human brain with legal methods is too expensive.. any conclusions?

edit on 18-11-2010 by SarK0Y because: (no reason given)

None of that makes any logical sense.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

details, please.