|
Science is always political. It's always been political, and it always will be political. As easy examples, 1) a lot of underwater research was driven by the US military who wanted better ways to detect Soviet subs, 2) much of computer science in the 1960s was funded by the military through ARPA, 3) the Tuskegee Syphilis study existed because the people running the study thought it was better to let black people suffer in order to get scientific data - a decision solidly rooted in the race politics of the time, 4) much of Near Eastern archaeology is driven by politics related to the Abrahamic religions, far beyond what 'impartial science' might do, 5) the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funds so much education research (and journalists, think tanks, lobbying organizations and governments) that it can overwhelm opposition, including objections to the quality of the science. (Eg, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulle... for how $200 million, which combined research and advocacy, helped convince many states to switch to the Common Core, even though there were no pilot studies or other solid evidence that it was worthwhile.) Nor are scientists impartial. When Rowland and Molina published their findings about CFCs and the ozone layer, "they also made an effort to announce their findings outside of the scientific community, informing policy makers and the news media of their work." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_J._Molina .) They didn't decide to be impartial and apolitical. |