The rise of anti-science

Just run into this article today: www.guardian.co.uk...

It seems that scientists in the USA are feeling a rising pressure against research related to topics of great public interest such as environmental studies, climate change or even genetics and evolution.

The attacks range from hacking their e-mail accounts, on-line campaigns to dismiss their posts, ghost-writing scientific articles doubting research results and supporting politicians who attack science supported government policies like environmental pollution regulations.

The attackers are identified as corporate anti-science lobbies aiming to undermine research which might affect their business.

From the article:

In the past, it thought the problem was just a matter of education. All its practitioners had to do was make an effort to reach out and talk to teachers, the public and business leaders. Then these people would see the issues and understand the need for action.

But now they are beginning to realize what they are really up against: massive organized attempts to undermine scientific data by people for whom that data represents a threat to their status quo. Given the power of these people, scientists will have their work cut out dealing with them.

Another related article: www.bbc.co.uk...

Looks like the there are forces against climate and environment research rooted in business interests and not the other way around. Surely something for the conspiracy inclined here.

There's no such thing as Climate Change, genetic studies and stem cell research are "evil" and the world is flat.


It's becoming more and more popular to be "old school," anti-intellectual and conservative.


Now it looks like there's an organized effort to stop the spread of knowledge

I need to read more about it, but honestly this doesn't seem to be surprising me.

It reminds me very much of smoking lobbies etc ... of the past. Not to mention asbestos and any number of other similar things through history.

The only topics that are heated are the ones with tax money/funding involved.

Other than that, which has been going on for centuries, i've not observed anything out of the ordinary.

Thanks for your input guys.

So would you say it is business as usual? The article message seems to be that the attacks are more organized and directed now.

That is so FREAKING wrong.
Public servants being accountable for the money the spend and whats more accountable to the public. Oh the horror and terror this will usher in.
Or
Who cares. Science has long forgotten its heritage.

reply to post by borntowatch

Do you mind to elaborate what is freaking wrong and what heritage has been forgotten? Thanks.

The problem is that whenever facts disagree with religion, people go all nuts and talk about "protecting religious freedom". Doesn't even matter how logical/rational the findings are, they will still go ape# over it.

What we're seeing is people finally waking up and standing up against this ignorance...so a lot of religious fundamentalists (they're a minority...but a loud one) feel threatened, and rightfully so. Eventually logic will win, it's just a matter of time. And stats fully support this as the amount of "believers" has been steadily dropping for over 20 years now. They're fighting a losing battle against logic and rationality.

This resistance against science is merely a small roadblock by very uneducated and ignorant people who have been brainwashed to buy into stuff that's DEMONSTRABLY wrong.

There is another side to this issue not discussed in the article. Many will agree that our governments are out of control, abusing our rights and generally headed on the course of fascism.

What enables these people to do what they have done? Science! I'm not here to slam intellectual curiosity or to criticize the pursuit of knowledge but what has happened is that much of scientific research has been channeled in to uses for war, controlling populations and for intelligence gathering.

I think there is a genuine cause for concern by the general population in the misapplication of scientific research to control and dominate the citizenry. People would like to think science is pure and without ulterior motivations but when over half of the grant money given to American colleges and universities is provided by the Department of Defense we can't be expecting them to produce ideas or technology that will work for the benefit of the public. What we get are more things like drones, tasers, robotics for killing and spying, emotion-reading scanners, rail guns, guns that shoot around corners, LRAD systems etc, etc.

Even though medical research is making amazing breakthroughs the benefits derived will only be available to those who can afford them. Bioweapons are another field where science has created the ultimate doomsday weapon that could be unleashed at any time on an unsuspecting public.

Nuclear power and "atoms for peace" should be heavily questioned due to events like Chernobyl and Fukushima. US nuclear plants are aging and people are wondering just how safe we truly are.

The real failure here is that science has not been questioning itself. They aren;t asking the hard questions like "can this be misused to hurt people" or "will this allow a handful of people control over others?".

By blindly forging ahead and accepting money for questionable projects the scientific community has done humanity and science a great disservice.

No need to wonder why science is under attack. It is being used against us in a million ways by technocratic governments every single day.

This article isn't about "anti-science" at all. It's about special interests on both sides of the issues.

This is corporate science vs. modern academia, and both have a vested interest in keeping step with their given benefactors. (The people who draft their paycheck and mete out grant monies.)

And now they've dragged it into the political arena, and turned it into another divisive issue for the public to try and make sense of.

The whole article wreaks of politics as usual, and I'm not buying any of it.



Asktheanimals.

I think people are confusing "science" with "application of science". Of course science is influenced by public policy, that's how we ended up on the moon after all. However, it's not science that is "evil" or committing evil acts...it's the very politicians people vote for that use it for their (often crappy) goals.

Take the nuclear bomb for example. Einstein came up with base formulas which as a side product lead to the development of the nuclear bomb...but he didn't start out saying "let's try to come up with a formula that creates a really big bomb".

In fact, he was worried about politicians using his findings for crappy goals, and was extremely worried that instead of it being used for good purposes (energy), they would use it to slaughter humans:

The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.

Science isn't the issue here, it's human nature that is!

reply to post by Klassified


I agree and it's the issue of Man-made Global Warming that has forced science in to the political arena. When they started pushing carbon taxes suddenly everyone was potentially affected and began taking sides.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
What enables these people to do what they have done? Science! I'm not here to slam intellectual curiosity or to criticize the pursuit of knowledge but what has happened is that much of scientific research has been channeled in to uses for war, controlling populations and for intelligence gathering.

Originally posted by Klassified
This article isn't about "anti-science" at all. It's about special interests on both sides of the issues.

This is corporate science vs. modern academia, and both have a vested interest in keeping step with their given benefactors. (The people who draft their paycheck and mete out grant monies.)

Both of these can be reduced to economical objections i.e. the use of tax money/funding from the public to fuel certain research. That's the common thread, and that's also the basic principle behind the article. It has nothing to do with the rejection/acceptance of research. So, yes, I would say the article is abit sensationalist and conveys an exaggeration.

People don't want their money going toward things they wouldn't personally invest in, and so if there's a debate, it's not over the findings or research, rather it's over how that research is being funded and how it's supposed to be used.

reply to post by moebius


This isn't anti-science so much as it is corporate espionage and sabotage. That's been going on for decades, and is really not very surprising.

Otherwise, you're making a thinly veiled pot-shot at skeptics to hot-topic issues.

Science is not a unified community, son. It is a field of opinions, experiences, ambitions, and careers. It's no longer just a field where people get paid to make things that work. It's a field where people get paid to do research and publish reports on what might or could be.

You'll find, as you mature, that Science does not; nor can it ever, have a single theory or thing that it backs.

Because Science is a tool - a concept and process.

People back scientific theories for non-scientific reasons - on faith or illogical rationale; just as people resist scientific theories based on unscientific reasoning.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Klassified

 

I agree and it's the issue of Man-made Global Warming that has forced science in to the political arena. When they started pushing carbon taxes suddenly everyone was potentially affected and began taking sides.

The problem is, they're merely stating facts. You can't really expect scientists to hold back information simply because it creates controversy

I used to be a global warming denier until I read that Ayn Rand was skeptical of the health risks of smoking until she herself developed lung cancer. It really made me think.

I do think global warming is perhaps overrated as a threat though, and that there's probably greater risks to the environment. Still we MUST go green, for things like preventing Deepwater Horizon alone!

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Klassified

 

I agree and it's the issue of Man-made Global Warming that has forced science in to the political arena. When they started pushing carbon taxes suddenly everyone was potentially affected and began taking sides.

Thank you for mentioning the carbon taxes. That's another facet adding to the mix.

reply to post by lampsalot

Still we MUST go green, for things like preventing Deepwater Horizon alone!

Wouldn't that depend on whether or not AGW is the cause of GW?

Originally posted by Klassified

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Klassified

 

I agree and it's the issue of Man-made Global Warming that has forced science in to the political arena. When they started pushing carbon taxes suddenly everyone was potentially affected and began taking sides.

Thank you for mentioning the carbon taxes. That's another facet adding to the mix.

But carbon tax isn't science, in fact, a lot of climate scientists are against it as it doesn't solve the issue. It's just a convenient way for companies to "buy" their way out of having to act responsibly. It's not a sustainable solution.

The only way to solve this issue is to implement fines for companies that don't act in a sustainable matter. And those fines have to be high enough to make it completely unprofitable for them to simply pay the fine (which would be the same as a carbon tax) and ignore any sustainable initiatives. Hell, the current fines we have are a complete joke as many companies (such as the Koch brothers) simply look at them as a cost...it doesn't stop them from polluting!