4 thoughts on “The Science Police

  1. Tom C

    It’s telling that I am moved to compliment you on a “brave” article.

    Not as brave as it could have been. Any discussion of the science police vis-a-vis climate should include the baleful influence of Michel Mann. His behavior toward respected scientists that disagree with his alarmist stance is so poisonous that it has to serve as a low bar standard of some sort. Moreover, colleagues that will not call him out should be sorted into the same basket.

    Reply
  2. JohnM

    I wish that Keith had very precisely defined what a scientist is and how that differs from being a scientist-activist. Some brief discussion of what make a person become a scientist-activist would also have been useful.
    My guess is that in some income is prime motivator and when there’s funding for work to support one hypothesis but not another, it’s not difficult to see someone opting for the funded path. (I say person but it might also cover the establishment that employs them.) The next step is to repeat the process, again for income. After that the person has developed a reputation in the field and is very unlikely to willingly sacrifice that reputation especially when its a path that leads to more income. At some point they are likely to accept the beliefs associated with that hypothesis and be far less critical of it than other hypotheses that might challenge it.

    Reply
  3. Dean Gerstein

    The triggering event is that a research paper was rejected by Nature…but then quickly published in PNAS? If this story were a fairy tale, it would be The Princess and the Pea.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Dean Gerstein Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.