Web Development

General discussion


Political interference in science in the USA

By jardinier ·
It has been suggested at this website that research scientists have an "agenda" in that they depend on Government grants to stay in business.

I don't have to mention names, but we all know of someone who scoffs at scientific studies on global warming for the above mentioned reason.

I now present you with a formidable array of instances of government interference with, including suppression or distortion of, scientific work.


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Is There Objectivity?

by XEntity In reply to Political interference in ...

In debates between philospohers William Hume and John Locke a quip was made; "Show me an objective scientist and I will show you a Christian who loves his enemy." This quip points to two curious points. Our interest here is in objective science.

I reviewed the website you posted. Clearly the scientist are not objective as they have an agenda and a position on specific politically charged issues. Their missions are clear:

"We are working to bring about a safer world by eliminating the risks posed by nuclear arsenals and nuclear terrorism, improving nuclear power plant safety, preventing the deployment of anti-satellite and space-based weapons, and enhancing international dialogue on security issues."

"Help us convince the USDA to ban the outdoor use of food crops to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals."

"The worldwide movement of non-native organisms damages the environment and endangers native species, undermining decades of conservation efforts. Because federally regulated international trade is the source of most invaders, we must reverse some U.S. policies and improve others."

"By demonstrating that renewable energy solutions are sustainable both environmentally and economically, we aim to enact federal and state policies that support renewable energy, reduce barriers to the adoption of renewable technologies, and encourage all energy purchasers to use renewables."

"Consumers deserve better performance and less pollution than U.S. automakers currently provide. Our experts in diesel, gasoline, and advanced vehicle technologies provide consumers and decision makers with the information they need to build a robust economy based on cleaner transportation choices."

"Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal."

"An unprecedented level of political interference threatens the integrity of government science. Because policy makers depend on impartial research to make informed decisions, we are mobilizing scientists and citizens alike to push for reforms that will protect our health, safety, and environment."

Objective scientist employ no positions or stances nor do they come to the problem statement with a preconcieved notion. Objective scientist follow innocently where the information takes one. Objective scientist are fully capable of not only verticle logic but also lateral logic. Most important to objective science is imagination without that nothing can be known.

Leonardo Da Vinci is considered the worlds greatest genius and in his practice he used 7 seven Da Vincian principles. Da Vinci never came to a problem statement with an agenda.

I agree science is science and should be the same regardless of any sectarian or political position. Science must be consistent through out the natural universe.

However, too many people have a political or sectarian notion in dire need of support simply because it has no merit. So through non-disclosure and stretching of the science principles humans justify their selfish ideas.

Collapse -

I agree

That site is far from objective. They have several issues they are pushing for support for.

Collapse -

So they have an agenda. So what?

by jardinier In reply to Is There Objectivity?

Which parts of their agenda do you object to?

Your post refers to pure science. The agenda is about applied science.

Pure science led to the theoretical information on which atomic weapons were developed. Nuclear weapons are applied science and there most certainly was an agenda for developing these weapons.

What is the point of pure science if it cannot lead to practical applications?

Collapse -

I see....

by puppybreath In reply to So they have an agenda. S ...

It's OK for scientists to have an agenda as long as it confirms your beliefs. That puts you in the same category as that person you were criticizing in your original post.

This is nothing more than the same old "my scientist is better/smarter than your scientist" argument.

Collapse -

That it can lead to applied science

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to So they have an agenda. S ...

I'm not sure there is such a thing as pure science anyway, pure mathematics, pure philosophy.

Pure science as in not politically motivated, not for long.

Also experience has taught us that any science always has political dimension.

A bit more objectivity would be nice, but 99% of funding is from people who want to see an application of science.

Everyone has an agenda, for instance I'm at a loss as to why you appear to singled out the USA as a purveyor of 'impure' science, they aren't alone in that.

Collapse -

Single out the USA?

by jardinier In reply to That it can lead to appli ...

Now however did you get that idea? I came across this website which ONLY has American scientists as members.

Collapse -


If your post was in response to mine, i never said i object or agree with their agenda. I just said the website wasn't objective. My post refered to the website, not pure/applied science. Your'e putting words in my mouth.

Collapse -

My apologies .....

by jardinier In reply to Jardinier..

for "putting words in your mouth."

Collapse -


by XEntity In reply to Is There Objectivity?

Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the natural, physical universe. Specifically, science is interested in complexity and order. Science does not concern itself with origin, application, or political agendas. Science philosophy focus on the ethical and moral implications of certain discoveries such as with nuclear and genetic discoveries.

Which parts of their agenda do I object to? An unprecedented level of political interference threatens the integrity of government science. These people are biting the hand that feeds them. They are paid to support their funders interest not thier own. They are not in the slightest interested in objective science.

The point of PURE science is the diliberate and methodical process of accurate discovery. However, people often reject the findings because they conflict with what they want to understand or know. Humans, in general, are selfish and even wrap selfless language with selfish desires. A simple test for this is if you are using I, my, or me (we, us, or our) alot in discussing the "truth". The truth is self-evident.

The website is about engineering a "truth".

Collapse -

The truth is self-evident

by maxwell edison In reply to APPLIED SCIENCE = ENGINEE ...

Outstanding message! The truth is self-evident.

"Science" will disagree, while the "truth" will not. Science, at one time, used to advance the notion of a flat earth. The "truth", however, eventually prevailed.

Something else that is deserving of mention concerning the notion of "human caused global warming" is this: It is often touted as a foregone conclusion because of a "scientific consensus". There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus". If there was a real "consensus", it wouldn't be "scientific", but rather it would be a fact. And the notion of "human caused global warming" is as much a "fact" as the notion of a flat earth.

"Human caused global warming" is NOT science, it's a political agenda.

Related Discussions

Related Forums