[arekkas]

Do you really rely on only one source for your information? Maybe the article is not top notch investigative journalism, that doesn't dispute that this administration is openly aggressive to science that doesn't fit their agenda.

[return0]

Thanks for saying that. I wonder why nature feels that scientists around the world need to read pure fluff which presents speculation as fact. Maybe because they want to bias scientists for or against someone? Science still needs to be blind.

[arekkas]

Science must be political when it comes to self-preservation. It must not bias or censor research due to politics, which is where we're currently headed.

[return0]

I don't think so. So scientists should fight to keep their jobs even if their science is bad? Some of the best science came from the most unlikely places, and was not funded.

[richmarr]

Whose science is bad?

[return0]

too many to list http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/most-scientific-result...

[richmarr]

So, you're saying 'some science is bad' and 'some science doesn't need public funding'... and that's your justification for a blanket ban on research grants?

You say there are "too many to list" but if you want this argument to sound even vaguely informed you're going to have to be a lot more specific about which science is bad and why.

From your comments it's not clear whether you know anything about science or public policy or have just read an article that says "science is bad, mmkay"