Politicized Science is Bad for Science

T

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,864
Reaction score
1,615
Here is an example of why:

When It Comes To Neonics, Activists Understand PR Better Than Chemical Companies Do

Imagine a scenario where a group of people get together to frame the debate about science and even set out to conspiratorially place papers in highly-respected journals, selecting the ideal names to have on the paper and which publications would be most likely to publish it.

It must be those evil corporate chemical shills again, right?

Not this time, it was the International Workshop On Neonicotinoids in 2010 and it explains a lot about how the anti-science contingent has managed to maintain so much mindshare in media: they know how to work the system and created a 4-year plan to do just that.

The meeting notes start off as you expect - how to use Haber's Rule in order to force risk assessment using the US National Research Council's “Red Book” (NRC, 1983) guidelines for studying possible health effects of chemicals on humans and ecosystems. Haber's Rule says that multiplying the same concentration of a chemical compound by the same duration of exposure will yield the same biological response.

Environmentalists love to believe this, because it means that really low levels of any pesticide could be harmful over time, it just isn't true and never has been. In a study of 21 well-known chemicals the lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAEL) using sub-acute, sub-chronic and chronic durations showed that the value of p, assumed to be 1 in risk assessment methodology, wasn't 1 for any of the chemicals. It's certainly Haber's Guideline For Environmental Activism, but not really a science rule and that is why impartial scientists say it shouldn't be used systematically for risk assessment in public health decision-making, like banning products. Instead, actual studies should be done that are not reviews of other papers.

Regardless, invoking Haber's Rule is just one approach in A time-honored strategy to manipulate science to achieve a political goal. This strategy has worked since the 1960s and I present it to you here, free of charge - because I do not work for an environmental corporation or anyone else so they can't pay me for it:

STEP 1: Get An Environmental Organization To Fund It
Click to expand...
...continue at link

Whenever political activists are involved with science, be extra skeptical about the so-called "findings".
 
Yup, politicized science is often bad for science. This is why big corporations spend lots of money politicizing science when it contradicts something they are wanting people to believe. Climate science is a perfect example of this.
 
ghoti said:
Yup, politicized science is often bad for science. This is why big corporations spend lots of money politicizing science when it contradicts something they are wanting people to believe. Climate science is a perfect example of this.
Click to expand...
Kind of ironic that you bring climate change into the discussion.

Don't forget to mention the IPCC and other political organizations (e.g. governments) that play a role in politicizing AND/OR bankrolling climate science.
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
Kind of ironic that you bring climate change into the discussion.

Don't forget to mention the IPCC and other political organizations (e.g. governments) that play a role in politicizing AND bankrolling climate science.
Click to expand...

The IPCC do not do original research themselves. They monitor the published research from respected scientific and academic institutions from around the world. They are an intergovernmental organization to study an international problem. They are supported by many governments with many different political ideologies from around the world. The IPCC is supported by both private and government institutions. It is supported by academic and business interests. There are even thousands of scientists who volunteer to work at the IPCC to help peer review the data the IPCC is collecting.

The IPCC does not have the money to fund even a tiny portion of the research happening around the world. They do not have as deep a pockets as you think they do. In fact:

"All scientists contribute their time to IPCC activities unpaid or with support provided by their respective scientific host institutions or governments". - See more at: http://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/ipcc/process#funding

I could find no information about large scale grant donations from the IPCC. I did find a rather robust conflicts of interest policy: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-conflict-of-interest.pdf
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
The IPCC do not do original research themselves. They monitor the published research from respected scientific and academic institutions from around the world. They are an intergovernmental organization to study an international problem. They are supported by many governments with many different political ideologies from around the world. The IPCC is supported by both private and government institutions. It is supported by academic and business interests. There are even thousands of scientists who volunteer to work at the IPCC to help peer review the data the IPCC is collecting.

The IPCC does not have the money to fund even a tiny portion of the research happening around the world. They do not have as deep a pockets as you think they do. In fact:

"All scientists contribute their time to IPCC activities unpaid or with support provided by their respective scientific host institutions or governments". - See more at: http://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/ipcc/process#funding

I could find no information about large scale grant donations from the IPCC.
Click to expand...
AND/OR, read the edit.

But yeah, the IPCC is a political organization and probably another good reason why Politicized Science is Bad for Science.
 
Techne said:
AND/OR, read the edit.

But yeah, the IPCC is a political organization and probably another good reason why Politicized Science is Bad for Science.
Click to expand...

So is implying that the IPCC is bankrolling climate research.

I like this from the IPCC.

The role of the IPCC as stated in paragraph 2 of the Principles Governing IPCC Work is to
assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and
socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced
climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should
be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical
and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
Click to expand...
 
Now you are scraping the barrel, don't act all stupid.
 
ghoti said:
Okay, just to be clear. You understand the IPCC is not "bankrolling" climate research with its very modest budget?
Click to expand...
Yes of course, it was never implied by me in the first place. The politicization of climate science by the IPCC is, however, an issue (not part of the OP though, but since you brought it up...).
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
Yes of course, it was never implied by me in the first place. The politicization of climate science by the IPCC is, however, an issue.
Click to expand...

You are also aware that no IPCC findings are legally binding to any government or citizen anywhere in the world right?
 
ghoti said:
You are also aware that no IPCC findings are legally binding to any government or citizen anywhere in the world right?
Click to expand...
Now I do thanks. So what though? Does that make their politicization of climate science all of a sudden a good thing?
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
So? Does that make their politicization of climate science all of a sudden a good thing?
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, the politicalization can often be bad....but not always bad. It depends with your context. And by bad politicalization I talk about things like big oil owners like the Koch Brothers buying out politicians to muddy the waters around the consequences of their industry so they can protect profits.

However, not everything that is good for humanity is a profit making opportunity for someone. Some issues kinda involve a lot more resources than any one entity can provide. The LHC in Europe and the International Space Station are good examples of this. So if when you say politicalization you mean 'governments, non-government, academic and scientific institutions organizing themselves to gather research on a major issue impacting the planet'. I dont think thats a bad thing at all. However, if we are going to use this meaning of the word, schools, hospitals, fire departments and universities are politicized. I think this type of politicalization can be positive if a robust transparent and accountable system is created.

If individual greed is the motive I would be more skeptical.... but I dont think people working together for the publics interest is a bad thing.

So when you say politicized, which context of the term are you using?

a) That greedy people should not be buying out politicians and muddying the waters?

b) That people and governments from around the world should not organize themselves to gather as much research as they can on climate change?
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
Yes of course, it was never implied by me in the first place. The politicization of climate science by the IPCC is, however, an issue (not part of the OP though, but since you brought it up...).
Click to expand...

What do you mean by politicization? Is no political entity or body allowed to make comment on science without "politicizing" it?
 
ghoti said:
As I said earlier, the politicalization can often be bad....but not always bad. It depends with your context. And by bad politicalization I talk about things like big oil owners like the Koch Brothers buying out politicians to muddy the waters around the consequences of their industry so they can protect profits.

However, not everything that is good for humanity is a profit making opportunity for someone. Some issues kinda involve a lot more resources than any one entity can provide. The LHC in Europe and the International Space Station are good examples of this. So if when you say politicalization you mean 'governments, non-government, academic and scientific institutions organizing themselves to gather research on a major issue impacting the planet'. I dont think thats a bad thing at all. However, if we are going to use this meaning of the word, schools, hospitals, fire departments and universities are politicized. I think this type of politicalization can be positive if a robust transparent and accountable system is created.

If individual greed is the motive I would be more skeptical.... but I dont think people working together for the publics interest is a bad thing.

So when you say politicized, which context of the term are you using?

a) That greedy people should not be buying out politicians and muddying the waters?

b) That people and governments from around the world should not organize themselves to gather as much research as they can on climate change?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but when some political entity (or any entity/organization) comes in with a pre-conceived notion about what is right or wrong (look at the OP) and then push biased science and simultaneously ignore data that does not support its view, then there is no justifying this kind of political interference. You see this from industries and you see this from governments all over the world.
 
Last edited:
Can always blame the squirrels for global warming:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30456869

Arctic ground squirrels could play a greater role in climate change than was previously thought.

Scientists have found that the animals are hastening the release of greenhouse gases from the permafrost - a vast, frozen store of carbon.

The researchers say it suggests the impact of wildlife on this area has been underplayed.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X