Science Is Dead, Long Live Science

 At WUWT, Top Journal: Scientists Should Be More, Not Less, Political

Science, nominally the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, is at it again. In November, they 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:

1. Scientists must be judged on impersonal criteria. (No firing people for ‘racism’.)
2. They must share their data and results with one another. (No preventing access to datasets.)
3. They must seek to advance knowledge, not pursue personal or political goals. (No requiring people to promote ‘diversity’.)
4. And they must remain detached from the subject matter of their research. (No promoting feel-good dogmas.)

My subscription to Science ceased with my retirement. But to be honest, it's editorial side has been squishy for a long time. For scientists, objectivity has usually been a virtue most often honored in the breach. 

Good news from NewsBusters, Censors Lose Again: Mann Ordered To Pay National Review Over $500K

It was a bad week for those on the left who try to censor their opponents. First, Meta announced it would ditch the fact-checkers who think they are entitled to be the final arbiters of truth and censor anyone who dissents. Now, the media’s favorite professor of climate alarmism, Michael Mann, has been forced to pay nearly $600,000 in legal fees to National Review after a frivolous lawsuit that alleged they defamed him.

National Review’s editors wrote on Friday, “For more than eight years, the climate scientist Michael Mann harassed National Review through litigation over a blog post — until, eventually, the First Amendment brought an end to his attack. This week, a court in our nation’s capital ordered Mann to pay us $530,820.21 worth of attorney’s fees and costs, and to do so within 30 days. It is time for him to get out his checkbook, and sign on the dotted line.”

During discovery, Mann stated he viewed his lawsuit as a way to “ruin National Review.”

The editors go on to recount the sad story of their legal battle with Mann, “Science — to which Mann is supposed to be devoted — inevitably involves disagreement. And yet, Mann proved incapable of handling dissent. Instead of engaging in debate, he sued us — for defamation and for the infliction of emotional distress. This, suffice it to say, is not how debate in America should work.”

It has not been all good news for National Review as it recalled, “The legal system hasn’t covered itself in glory, either. Our own justice was repeatedly delayed, and, when it arrived, it was via the back door rather than as part of a ringing endorsement of the right to free speech. And, disgracefully, both of our co-litigants, Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, have been ordered to pay damages.”