The Political Bias In Mainstream Science Journals

Scientific Journals and reports tend to take sometime to address the political atmosphere, often times advocating to the readers a particular leaning to a certain political party. In America, there has been discontent on how the economy is going and how much debt has been accumulating for services among the public at large.

It has alarmed mainstream science journals such as Nature who fear their issues such as man-made climate change, health-care bill, cap and trade, and embryonic stem cell research will not get enough funding and increased regulations if the Republicans get into power.

Nature only publishes letters that are one-sided like Richard Kool (Royal Roads U, British Columbia) who claimed that science is a “threat to the far-right fringe.” Nothing could be further from the truth! Let me tell Richard and the Editorial staff at Nature. How did those Chilean miners who were trapped 2300 feet below the surface get rescued? Was it government aid or companies who are driven to make profits?

They were able to rescue those miners because of an American company (Center Rock) who called the Chilean government and told them that they have a drill bit that might help them. Government aid, or donations to causes that Nature endorses, those miners would be still down there!  Relying on Chinese manufacturing the bit would have broken before the rescue could take place so they would be still down there as well. A drill bit for drilling into the earth would be considered a tool against biodiversity. An American business who makes things for a profit, helped saved those people with innovation which happened as the result of accumulating profits of something people want!

This is not to say, companies never do bad, because they do just like non-profits. But Nature’s biased position is totally illogical. They certainly didn’t use a scientific method to arrive at their conclusions. The people who are champing innovation are in the private sector which also provides the massive funding that scientists get for research. Without the private companies success, innovation dies and so does funding!

Three other articles in Nature that have depicted Republicans as obstructionists.  Jeff Tollefson, for instance, ended his article with quotes from Paul Bledsoe, whom he called a centrist: “Climate-science denial is a by-product of extreme partisanship and a kind of reactionary mode among conservatives, and I expect that this will wane,” he said.  “But if large parts of the Republican Party begin to deny consensus science, then the climate community will have to confront them about it.”

Deny consensus, yea right, is this the same consensus that brought us climategate? This also brings us to another question, should taxpayer money be used for left-leaning political agendas? Don’t they make enough money that they could do that on their own time? By thumbing their noses at the private sector innovations, is this not hindering science?

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “The Political Bias In Mainstream Science Journals

  1. Man-made climate change is not an ‘issue’, it is a scientific conclusion, as agreed by the majority of scientist in that field. Such a conclusion is not political: it is purely scientific.

  2. Michael: “How did those Chilean miners who were trapped 2300 feet below the surface get rescued? Was it government aid or companies who are driven to make profits?”

    How did they get in that position anyway ? Guess what: a mining company that did not take safety too seriously, in order to …. make profits.

    You shoot yourself in the foot here, Michael.

  3. Michael,

    It has alarmed mainstream science journals such as Nature who fear their issues such as man-made climate change, health-care bill, cap and trade, and embryonic stem cell research will not get enough funding and increased regulations if the Republicans get into power.

    Well, you are getting your way, so don’t cry about it too much, Michael. We know the Republicans will win congress this year…..even though we should all be really voting Libertarian..

    Deny consensus, yea right, is this the same consensus that brought us climategate?

    Michael, I am not crazy about the global warming crowd anymore than you are, but you have just overgeneralized. The vast majority of scientists that say global climate change is afact were not involved in “glimate gate.” — It is true that “Climate Gate” made me a bit of a skeptic, but NOT ENOUGH SO to say that most scientists are in to fool us. I think most of them are honest in their conclusions about climate chang. What Climate Gate did was show some scientists that were willing to distort the facts, bit that is not enough to accuse all of the scientists in that field of doing the same thing. Global climate change is a fact. It has been happening for the last 4.5 billion years.

  4. It has alarmed mainstream science journals such as Nature who fear their issues such as man-made climate change, health-care bill, cap and trade, and embryonic stem cell research will not get enough funding and increased regulations if the Republicans get into power.

    Republicans get into power? No, no, Michael, they want Labour to get into power.

    Or did you not realize that Nature is a British journal, not an American one….

  5. Nature only publishes letters that are one-sided like Richard Kool (Royal Roads U, British Columbia) who claimed that science is a “threat to the far-right fringe.” Nothing could be further from the truth!

    Science is not a threat to the far right?

    It certainly is a threat to biblical creationism, which is a proper subset of the far-right fringe? (Name one biblical creationist who voted for Obama. I rest my case.)

    We might also review Chris Mooney’s book The Republican War on Science, detailing hundreds of instances in which the late unlamented Bush administration suppressed scientific reports, forced agencies to modify their conclusions, and interfered with research projects. Everything from burying NOAA reports on Arctic ice melts to outright lying about the efficacy of abstinence-only sex-education programs.

    ‘Twas not always so. Dwight Eisenhower, ironically a detractor of the “military-industrial complex,” was a staunch supporter of science. His science adviser, Vannevar Bush, was not only a resp4cted scientist bur also a philosophical visionary, and an excellent politician and manager. Physicist and IBM vice president Lewis Branscomb was an adviser to Ronald Reagan.

    The far-right antipathy toward science burgeoned with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Gingrich—and later George W. Bush—always believed that they alone possessed the Truth. When science presumed to say differently, science was muzzled.

    These days, the farther right the politicians, the less they wish to hear from science. Sarah Palin blasts fruit-fly research without realizing its value to her son’s autism. Michelle Bachmann thinks that the atmosphere is “three percent” carbon dioxide, and said that medicine is “half the GDP of the US.” Both wish to teach creationism and exclude evolution from schools. Both are climate-change denialists.

    “Nothing could be further from the truth.” Michael apparently refers to a creationist Truth that has no relationship to reality.

  6. Olorin,

    It certainly is a threat to biblical creationism, which is a proper subset of the far-right fringe? (Name one biblical creationist who voted for Obama. I rest my case.)

    Do family members count? lol

    Seriously, I dare say a lot of Seventh-Day Adventists (who are YECs) voted for Obama even though they tend to be socially conservative. There is a certain paranoia among some Seventh-Day Adventists that even though they have more ideological agreements with Republicans, that a Republican president may be the one who passes tbe “Sunday law” and enable the mark of the beast.

    I had a teacher (at a school owned and run by the Seventh Day Adventist Church) who use to tell me that the Bible predicted the Republican party would become an enabler for the mark of the beast. No joke.

  7. Excuse me, Kris. I was not aware of this aspect of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

    What is the “Sunday law”? Would it enforce Sunday only and prohibits Saturday worship, or similar?

    BTW, it is now clear that “the Beast” was Nero. Although the number of the Beast in the canon is 666, there is a non-canonical gospel that makes it 616. This is significant because, while the (usual) Greek form of his name, “Neron Caesar,” works out to 666, the Latin form, “Nero Caesar,” sums to 616. Science to the rescue, eh what?

    I also recently learned, from a Dan-Brown type novel, that the Romans always used “IIII” for “4,” rather than “IV.” The reason again is religious. They felt it would be sacrilegious to use the abbreviation for a god in a number: “IVPITER,” for Jupiter. (The hero in the book used this fact to determine that a Roman inscription was from a medieval period, rather than ancient. Clever, no?)

  8. Olorin,

    Excuse me, Kris. I was not aware of this aspect of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

    It’s not an official teaching. Being raised in it, there are certain groups of the SDA church that hold certain views like it though.

    What is the “Sunday law”? Would it enforce Sunday only and prohibits Saturday worship, or similar?

    The way it was spoken about when I grew up in the church gave the impression that it would be enforced for for keeping Sunday. – Of course, congress has no legislation of any such thing to date, and I doubt it ever will.

    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology#Sunday_law

    BTW, it is now clear that “the Beast” was Nero. Although the number of the Beast in the canon is 666, there is a non-canonical gospel that makes it 616. This is significant because, while the (usual) Greek form of his name, “Neron Caesar,” works out to 666, the Latin form, “Nero Caesar,” sums to 616. Science to the rescue, eh what?

    True. I agree. Nero was the beast of Revelation. But Seventh-Day Adventists believe that the “mark of the beast” has not come yet. They believe that Sunday keeping, though not necessarly damning in and of itself, will be a factor in receiving the mark.

    — Just going on what I was taught growing up in the SDA church. Perhaps i was in a loony faction. *shrugs*

  9. –Olorin,

    Oops, when i said “It’s not an official teaching,” I hadn’t read the entire comment yet and thought we were talking about the attitude some SDAs have for the Republicans…. Sorry, mea culpa. Didn’t read the entire comment yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s