Science, nominally the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, is at it again. In November, it published an editorial by Agustin Fuentes titled ‘Scientists as political advocates’. The gist is that scientists and scientific institutions need to be even more political than they already are.
Back in 2023, Fuentes wrote an editorial that claimed “being woke is just doing good 21st-century science”. And in 2021, he wrote one that described Charles Darwin as “an English man with injurious and unfounded prejudices”. Indeed, the prolific Fuentes has penned no less than eight editorials for Science over the last four years – suggesting that the editors like what he’s selling.
Returning to ‘Scientists as political advocates’, Fuentes begins by warning readers that science is “under attack”. Does he mean that it’s under attack from woke ideologues trying to bend science into a tool for promoting ‘diversity’? Or that it’s under attack from public health officials trying to shut down discussion over the harms of pandemic policies? Of course not. He means that it’s under attack from his political opponents.
Almost all the examples Fuentes gives involve accusations that some person or organisation on the political right is attacking science. He isn’t worried about attempts to redefine basic biological concepts like ‘sex’ or scientists being made the subjects of censorious petitions for opposing mask mandates. This isn’t to say that Fuentes’ examples don’t qualify as attacks – just that his presentation is so obviously one-sided and tendentious.
In the next paragraph, Fuentes manages to derive the conclusion that “science in many societies is political and always has been” by quoting a recent statement on “scientific responsibility” from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which incidentally publishes Science. I’m not convinced. Sure, scientists should act responsibly, just like everyone else. But this doesn’t mean that science as an institution is or should be political.
People like myself who oppose the politicisation of science aren’t saying that scientists should be free to act irresponsibly, or that they should be indifferent to “the interest of humanity” (Fuentes’ words) in their role as private citizens. We’re saying that science itself should be kept separate from politics, as prescribed by the four Mertonian norms:
- Scientists must be judged on impersonal criteria. (No firing people for ‘racism’.)
- They must share their data and results with one another. (No preventing access to datasets.)
- They must seek to advance knowledge, not pursue personal or political goals. (No requiring people to promote ‘diversity’.)
- And they must remain detached from the subject matter of their research. (No promoting feel-good dogmas.)
In the next paragraph, Fuentes reaffirms his woke credentials, complaining that “attacks are often especially intense when the scientists are also women, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color), queer, or from other marginalized groups”. What he’s basically saying is that attacks on white male scientists are the least intense, which is more or less the opposite of the truth. Attacks on white male scientists tend to be the most intense precisely because such individuals rank lowest in the woke’s victimhood hierarchy. Have any black female scientists been the subject of a censorious petition signed by hundreds of their colleagues?
Fuentes proceeds to criticise the “idea that scientists must maintain an air of neutrality”, which, he claims, is “ethically problematic and practically detrimental” in the face of an “anti-science onslaught”. He seems to believe the only reason people aren’t on board with his political agenda is that too many scientists are laying low because they’re hung up on this whole neutrality thing. But scientists in many fields aren’t keeping quiet: they’re engaging in precisely the kind of activism that Fuentes wants. And in doing so, they’re contributing to the loss of public trust in science.
Fuentes’ call for super-charging the politicisation of science somehow isn’t very compelling. Traditional scientific values like neutrality and impartiality – they’re worth hanging on to.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
OK this is weird. Even the paramedic had a cardiac arrest. Must’ve been heat-related…
”Two people went into cardiac arrest at the Ed Sheeran concert in Pittsburgh over the weekend, while 17 more were rushed to hospital.
The Shape of You singer took to the stage at the city’s Acrisure Stadium on Saturday, July 8, to entertain the biggest Pittsburgh crowd he’s ever played in front of, with an estimated 51,000 fans piling in to see the Englishman.
Things took a turn among some gig-goers, though, who fell ill during the performance. Emergency services were called to more than 37 incidents, and 17 people were taken to hospital, including a stadium worker and a medic.”
https://www.irishstar.com/news/pennsylvania-news/stadium-staff-medic-go-cardiac-30432477
Here in the NL the authorities are already saying the vulnerable should be taking their next booster. Apparently pregnant women fall into the ”high risk” category. Read a whole article on the news that was 100% BS regarding how pregnant women are more at risk from Covid and therefore urged to get jabbed. Complete and utter lies and dangerous malfeasance. Is this still the standard advice everywhere? Dr Thorp knows the score;
”My 44 years of Ob experience and my vast published experience (221 articles, including 48 on COVID-related topics) allow me to be certain. I am willing to bet my life on it and I offered to debate anyone in the world for the last 3 years. NOBODY to date has the ethical, moral, and intellectual integrity to debate me.
Pushing the Lethal mRNA vaccines in my pregnant patients constitutes the GREATEST violation of ETHICS in the history of humanity. The danger signals emanating from the VAERS and a myriad of other sources globally are unprecedented. The danger signals from my VAST experience of seeing nearly 27,500 patients in the last 4.5 years are unprecedented.”
https://twitter.com/jathorpmfm/status/1677001591407116296
Dor Thorp is a brave man.
NATO
There is of course also the small matter of a NATO summit taking place in Lithuania! As well as all the issues over Sweden, Ukraine and NATO; another NATO development is that some Asian/Pacific countries will be attending and the USA would like to see NATO take some interest in the Asian/Pacific region. Unsurprisingly this has not gone unnoticed by China;
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202307/1294064.shtml
We will have to see what actually comes out of the Lithuanian summit? but to my mind the least likely outcome would be ‘Peace in our Time’.
And it also went fairly under the radar that we entered a mutual defence agreement with Japan in January.
More on the increasing censorship ( online though, as obviously men parading around in public with their penises on display or fake women inciting violence against real women is still considered above board in Clown World ) and the dreaded Digital services Act to be implemented next month;
”Social media platforms like TikTok and Snapchat will face possible shutdowns when they don’t crack down on problematic content during riots under the European Union’s content law, Internal Commissioner Thierry Breton said Monday.
Breton, a French politician, was responding in a French radio interview to comments by French President Emmanuel Macron that floated closing down some social media to clamp down on riots. Some critics likened this to measures seen in authoritarian states like China and Iran.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/social-media-riot-shutdowns-possible-under-eu-content-law-breton-says/
“Social media platforms like TikTok and Snapchat will face possible shutdowns when they don’t crack down on problematic content during riots…”
So “riots” are now a given are they? Why would that be I wonder?
WELL WHAT THE BLOODY HELL DID ANYONE EXPECT TO HAPPEN ON THAT SCORE?
The dangerous plants lurking in plain sight
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-66154244
The plant is hemlock. We’ve had huge quantities growing along paths near our local water meadows. It’s very impressive though it has an odd smell as it matures.
In the BBC article I note that despite concerns being expressed nobody local could be bothered to do anything about it.
It seems we actually need to say this:
Parents, Please teach your kids not to chew bits of vegetation that they wander past.
(Edited to take out a double ‘not’. Come to think of it it was funnier with the double negative)
It used to be law that Ragwort was removed as soon as it appeared because of its danger to horses. The requirement caused no one any serious problem because decades of removal had seriously reduced its spread, like measles.
The law was changed, I think another Blair stupidity, and now the damned weed is everywhere. Worse still, the dafties want to “rewild” which will cause weed seeds to spread across neighbouring fields and either reduce crop yield or increase chemical sprays – neither of thich the promoters of rewilding claim to want. Many of them are green veggie zealots so let them grow their own food on rewolded fields; I would love to see them try.
I remember in my old town centre seeing deadly nightshade growing in the little flower bed of the estate agent opposite the police station… nobody died.
Apart from Hunt, does anyone know a leftie who was refused a bank account or had one closed? Banks seem content to provide facilities to the army of left wing groups (some “charities”) and their financiers. They made no issue of it until recently although PEP rules have existed for many years. I used to run regulation for an Authorised Firm and we had a couple of cases which we considered.
Ministers and police chiefs are grandstanding in their appeals to judges. There are sentencing guidelines in place following consultation between various parties (some of whom don’t really believe in prison, it seems) and the judges were appointed with knowledge of their leanings.
Prison has a number of purposes, it seems to me. One is to punish – to make the life of the criminal less comfortable and less convenient. Second to protect society – so we can have some respite from their evil activities. Thirdly to demonstrate society’s objections – signals are important. If the police continue to protect protesters, give them hugs and cups of tea, then the message will not get to them that society objects. the MSM largely approves and I suspect the journalists on the ground give support to them. By arresting more, stop the sympathy and clear the roads fast, arrest, charge and fine them significant amounts and imprison repeat cases and organisers – the message will get across.
On student loans, we have an income share deal now. To recap: foreign borrowers will never have to repay, UK borrowers who move abroad will never have to repay and those whose degrees and intellects were so weak they can’t earn more than average wage will never repay. Only those who earn even a modest amount within a few years of graduation will pay and it is taken with PAYE from their salary.
It is a daft system that costs tax payers too much, fails to discipline Universities (on quality and excessive costs) and produces too many graduates who can’t get a job above minimum wage.
And they are just the three items that caught my eye first. I cannot respond to the organs involved because of pay walls and a reluctance to be associated with them.
What strikes me about todays articles is the sheer number of ‘divide & conquer’ issues. What are they trying to deflect our attention from??