Scientists Declare that Up is Down; Journalists Believe It

| | Comments (0)

CNN sports the headline today, "Obama moves to separate politics, science." How did he supposedly do this? By removing Bush's limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

On what planet is increased funding for scientific research an increased separation of politics and science?

The facts show Obama did the exact opposite of the headline: he further and more deeply entwined politics and science. The more something is funded, the more politics controls it.

The only way to separate politics and science is to get government out of science. I'd support that. (Of course, this is only a necessary, not sufficient, condition for a seperation of science and state.)

There's a perhaps even more disturbing headline on CNN, below the other: "Researchers cheer vote for science. But it's not a vote for science, it's a vote for federal funding of certain scientific research that many people, for very good reason, find unethical. There's nothing about this that is a "vote for science," or anything like it. If anything it's anti-science because it attaches more strings to the research.

And if you have to ask "what strings?," then you're really not paying attention. These are the same people who claim stem cell research in the U.S. was retarded by Bush's policies. Come on, people think: if you didn't rely on government in the first place, then Bush wouldn't have been making the decision to not fund your research ... are you getting it?

This reminds me of the insane praise that "scientists" gave the court decision that ruled that Intelligent Design is not "science." Whether or not I.D. is science, a court has no business making that determination (and no, whether something is science is not instructive as to whether it's a violation of the Establishment Clause). They applauded the court decision as "for science" just because they agreed with it, when in fact it was anti-science because it installed the court as an arbiter of science.

So when a court comes along and says Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't science, or a President limits spending on science ... if you favored Obama's decision, or if you favored the judge's decision, then don't whine, because you're supporting the system that makes such decisions you disagree with inevitable. Instead, you should be fighting for actual separation of science and politics.

Of course, it's possible that you know exactly what's going on and that you're merely dishonest. Surely some "scientists" recognize it's all political, and are merely exploiting the system to get what you want.


As Bastiat wrote, "Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few -- whether farmers, manufacturers, ship owners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so."

Including embryonic stem cell researchers.

I just wish thwy would say "we want that money" instead of nonsensically crowing about this being a vote "for science."

Leave a comment

<pudge/*> (pronounced "PudgeGlob") is thousands of posts over many years by Pudge.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by pudge published on March 9, 2009 2:14 PM.

Democrats Still Hate the Rule of Law was the previous entry in this site.

The Dangerous Arne Duncan is the next entry in this site.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.