Talk:Politicization of science/Archive 2

The distinction between facts and values (i.e., the limits of science)

WP:SOAP userfied to User talk:MoodyGroove Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I draw MoodyGroove's attention to WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

MoodyGroove: the material you are repeatedly attempting to reintroduce is a bunch of vague and unsubstantiated claims as to the nature of the "Politicization of science", it does not contain any specific recommendations for improvements to the article, let alone any factual basis for them. Here are some excerpts from WP:TALK that might prove helpful:

• "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."
• "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)."
• "Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it."

The thread I removed:

1. was a "general conversation about the article's subject";
2. contained no discussion on "how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article", just on your views;
3. contained no verifiable facts.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I could just as easily refer you to WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV. Regardless, I've nominated this dispute to be looked at by a third party. MoodyGroove (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Note: The following was added to the WP:3O page; it was removed because it did not comply with project guidelines. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Disagreement about whether or not User:Hrafn has a right to repeatedly remove [1][2][3][4][5][6] my good faith attempts to engage editors in civil discussion on the talk page."

1. WP:TALK clearly states that "Talk pages are ... not for general conversation about the article's subject".
2. The thread under disagreement was such a "general conversation", and contained neither specific recommendations for improvements to the article, nor verifiable information on which such improvements could be based.
3. Also per WP:TALK: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)" is permitted (with the referenced subsection including the prohibition against general conversations).

I therefore don't see that there's much to argue about. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Who wants to argue? The point you refuse to accept is that the broader subject is "Politics and Science", or what Time magazine calls "The Politics of Science". You deny that science is necessarily political, but that simply isn't true. If a neutral article existed called "The Politics of Science", this article would be an unacceptable POV fork, because it presupposes that science is, and ought to be, free from any government influence (the title itself indicates that to politicize science is necessarily bad and the definition given indicates that scientific consensus is necessarily a greater good than a political or moral consensus). So yes, my comments (all of them) are directly related to improving the article and making it conform more to the Wikipedia's most important and least negotiable principle: neutral point of view. Your hostility toward me speaks volumes to your ability to maintain a neutral point of view with regard to the subject of politics and science. Regards, MoodyGroove (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

So, MoodyGroove, what do you plan to contribute to the article?Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how reasonable we're all willing to be. I was hoping to discuss my concerns on the talk page first and develop a game plan with other editors (that's always a good idea, especially on controversial articles). Do you think I've been treated with respect and courtesy? If you'll check my contributions, you'll see that I've made solid contributions to a number of scientific articles, but crawling comes before walking, and with vehement opposition on the talk page, editing the main body of the article would be futile. I'm sure you'd agree. MoodyGroove (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

What statements do you plan to make in the article? What sources do you have ready to verify the statements? Finding and summarizing sources would be the first step toward incorporating them into the article.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Thank you, Athene. Please re-read my above captioned discussion about why this article is problematic, and why the broader issue is "Politics and Science" of which "manipulating scientific research for political gain" is a relatively small part, and why this article would be an unacceptable POV fork if an appropriately named article called "Politics and Science" or "The Politics of Science" existed. But since no one seems interested in broadening this article to make it more neutral about the intersection of politics and science, why not be honest and rename the article "Manipulation of Science by the Bush Administration"? MoodyGroove (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I agree, and I'm the one who added the US-centric tag. But if you have no content to add to the article, what do you expect other people to do? If you want to discuss changes in the talk section, please by all means submit some content, not just complaints. The way to "broadening this article to make it more neutral about the intersection of politics and science" is to add or introduce new content. So far, you have not.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but you have to admit, it's not as if I've had a warm reception. Since I disagree with some fundamental premises of the article, I was hoping to discuss those issues first. My attempts at civil discussion on the talk page were a courtesy so I could collaborate with other editors. It's not a requirement, and I don't need anyone's permission to edit the article. I always add reliable sources when I make edits to an article, and I strive to maintain a neutral point of view. This article will be no exception should I decide to pursue it (it's a big Wikipedia and my time is valuable). Best, MoodyGroove (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

If you have content to add, you can always submit it in the talk section for discussion before posting it in the main article, if you're worried about contention.Athene cunicularia (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is an unsubstantiated "disagree[ment] with some fundamental premises of the article" is pure WP:SOAP and not the basis for any proposed changes. Any "fundamental" change in the article would require bullet-proof sources to back it up. You presented no sources/substantiation at all, and were therefore cut off. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

• This article has been criticised for only portraying negative aspects of the influence of politics on science: "this article would be an unacceptable POV fork, because it presupposes that science is, and ought to be, free from any government influence".
• To maintain WP:NPOV, an article "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
• We have numerous, often highly prominent (e.g. 49 Nobel laureates and 63 National Medal of Science recipients), reliable sources as to the negative impact, but I have yet to see anybody present any reliable sources, no matter how minor, as to a positive impact of politics on science.
• Therefore, to comply with WP:NPOV this article should continue to present only the negative impact, unless and until, it can be verified with reliable sources that a positive impact is a significant viewpoint.
• I would further point out that the claim that "science is necessarily political" is an unverified (and most probably unverifiable) "WP:TRUTH" and as such has no place in the article.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I tend to agree with Thomas Paine: that government is best which governs least. Unless life, liberty or welfare are in jeopardy, science should operate with minimal government influence. Consequently scientists and their institutions must be instructed in (and by extension clearly advocate) a strict, uniform and externally (societally) acceptable code of scientific ethics and morality. Such ethics and morality will surely impede the work of some scientists who wish to explore the boundaries of that which is socially tolerable. Thus government steps in when science become unconscionable as an informed citizenry demands. The problem lies with misinformed people on all sides of the issue. I do not believe that all viewpoints are fairly represented because any set of standards for moderation are biased. Who is to say which sources are reliable? If we applied the standard of having earned a doctorate I believe we would be safer than trying to divine the relative merit of whole sources. Even then, it is not unprecendened that biased gatekeepers have kept great minds out of academia. A great strength of Wikipedia is that everyone may participate...which is of course also a great weakness! I completely concur that I have NEVER seen politics have a positive influence on fundemental science. I think we should expand the definition of politicization beyond "legal and economic pressure" to also include such motives as worldviews, unsupported personal opinions or convictions, philosophies, creeds and doctrines which may be advanced for any number of reasons. But there are limits to how far we can go. For example, I have no justification for adhering to a logical paradigm except that it tends to yield consistent results, and I have no justification for desiring consistent results except that this informs logically systematic theory. Thus my argument in favor of logic is a circular one which can only ultimately be accepted or rejected asthetically. This circularity is the only evidence I need (and perhaps it is the only sort of argument that is possible) to advance the notion of an inherently subjective root motivation for all observation, interpretation and hypothesis, and thus for science as a whole. Saseigel (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record

• "Accepting Politics in Science," The Washington Post: "...politics is unavoidable in the empaneling process. The real question is whether we want to openly confront this reality or allow it to play out in the proverbial backrooms of political decision making [...] science advisory panels never deal purely with science. They are convened to provide guidance either on policy or on scientific information that is directly relevant to policy. And as Arizona State University's Dan Sarewitz has persuasively argued, "When an issue is both politically and scientifically contentious, then one's point of view can usually be supported with an array of legitimate facts that seem no less compelling than the facts assembled by those with a different perspective." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• • This is talking about politically-appointed advisory panels, specifically the National Research Council, not science generally. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Science-Politics Tension Dates Back Centuries," by Steve Milloy, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute published at Fox News: "...to the extent there is any uprising by some vocal scientists against President Bush, it's had little to do with science and everything to do with politics [...] Rockefeller University energy expert Jesse Ausbel told Revkin that researchers were angry with the Bush administration because they were excluded from policy circles that were open to them under previous administrations [...] President Bush inherited this inherently political process — he did not invent it." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• A 'Faux News' opinion piece from a notorious partisan corporate hack - hardly a WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Such an Ad hominem attacks are particularly unfair and a hallmark of poor logic. You attack the person, not the substance of what is being presented. You also ridicule him based on his particular associations, an Association fallacy presuming Guilt by Association, thereby misdirecting the reader to consider something irrelevant, a clear red herring. Saseigel (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please read WP:RS -- it is about by-who/where a statement is made, not about its contents. Thus this was what I was addressing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The Politics of Pure Science," by Daniel S. Greenberg, book review at The University of Chicago Press: "Dispelling the myth of scientific purity and detachment, Daniel S. Greenberg documents in revealing detail the political processes that underpinned government funding of science from the 1940s to the 1970s. While the book's hard-hitting approach earned praise from a broad audience, it drew harsh fire from many scientists, who did not relish their turn under the microscope. The fact that this dispute is so reminiscent of today's acrimonious "Science Wars" demonstrates that although science has changed a great deal since The Politics of Pure Science first appeared, the politics of science has not." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• • This is talking about government funding of science, a legitimate subject for this article. It would be interesting to see where the weight of opinion is on the balance between the extra financial benefit versus the distortionary effect of government priorities. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Harmful Politicization of Science," by William Happer of the Hoover Institute: "Politicization is inevitable when governments provide funding for science. The public expects to get something back from the science they support——for example, better health, national security, jobs. This normal politicization does no harm and may even be good for science and society. But politicization taken to the extreme can be very harmful." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• • Again, this is talking about government funding of science. And I would point out that this is no reason not to attempt to minimise the political distortion of government-funded science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Politics and Science - Cheese and Chalk?" by Lord May, former government Chief Scientist, published at BBC News: "The world today really is very different from that of 50 years ago [...] And these advances are still accelerating. But as we head further into the new millennium, we increasingly realise that these well-intentioned uses of science have often had unintended adverse consequences. Witness climate change, environmental degradation and the unsustainable growth in human numbers. No wonder people worry about possible unintended consequences of emerging technologies such as GM crops and about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research [...] Ultimately, as science continues to advance offering more and more possibilities, we must learn to do a better job of asking which doors to open and which to leave closed. We must learn how to conduct democratic debates about political choices on a stage constrained by scientific facts (and made wobbly by scientific uncertainties)." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• • This is talking about the impact of scientific research on political choices and debates -- an issue that I've already raised. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Political Science - Why government isn't the best place to look for unbiased science," by Ronald Baily in Reason Online: "[P]oliticization of science, in response to ideological pressure from all directions, is perhaps an inevitable result of government funding of science [...] In a liberal secular society, science is the one standard of truth that most citizens can agree on. Thus everyone tries to show that "science" supports his or her point of view, pet project, or preferred policy. This makes the kind of distortions UCS points out—as well as the kind of distortions it doesn't point out—inevitable when government funds science. The UCS's recommendations are naïve, given the above realities of political science." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• "George W. Bush, Man of Science," by Ronald Bailey in Reason Online: "Appointments to scientific advisory committees aside—overlooking the irony of a group of scientists endorsing Senator John Kerry for president because President Bush has "politicized" science—has the Bush administration done anything all that different from past administrations?" MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• • I would note that the article doesn't attempt to offer a definitive answer to that question. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's disingenuous to maintain that science isn't necessarily political considering the existence of the NIH, CDC, NIST, EPA, NASA, and a host of other federal agencies (and their international equivalents). In the modern age, science and politics are inseparable, and I've supplied references to that effect. There are thousands of other G-hits I could sort through, but what's the point? I didn't come here to engage in destructive conflict, and I see no good coming from my continued involvement in this article or its talk space. Best regards, MoodyGroove (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

It's your loss if you don't want to contribute, MoodyGroove. It just looks like you're more interested in commenting over contributing. Unfortunately, commenting doesn't really do anyone any good. Why not work on a section or paragraph and incorporate it into the article. You claim to be an experienced Wikipedia editor. How hard can it be?Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Athene, it's the Wikipedia's loss anytime an editor moves on due to another editor's incivility. In my case, I have plenty of areas of interest, and it's a big Wikipedia. In any case, the references I just fleshed out are a contribution. I'm sorry it wasn't more to your liking. Have a great day! MoodyGroove (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I'm trying to encourage you to actually contribute something to the article, but you seem to be totally opposed to putting forth any actual effort. You can contribute, or don't, it doesn't matter at all to me. I'm not sure what you want people to do, though. It's not up to other people to do your contributions for you. But if you don't want to actually do any research to make a contribution, then you're right. Copying and pasting a list of Google results isn't really going to be to any reasonable editor's "liking."Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't require your encouragement, and I'm not asking you to make a contribution for me. I was challenged to provide some reliable sources pertaining to my comments on the talk page and I provided them. MoodyGroove (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

You do not wish to contribute to the article, and you do not wish for anyone to contribute for you. I think it's clear that you're here only to express your opinion in the Talk page, then. Feel free to move along, like you said you would.Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No MoodyGroove, it is you who is being "disingenuous". (1) Not all science is government funded. (2) There is nothing stopping governments putting in place safeguards to minimise harmful political distortions of the research they fund. (3) So your grand "WP:TRUTH" that "science is necessarily political" is wholly unfounded. As your involvement in this article seems to be solely aimed at making a WP:POINT, I see little loss in your refusing further involvement. We do however reserve the right to make use of the sources you provided us with though. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Have at it, but let's be frank. This entire article is to make a point. MoodyGroove (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Oh my! I am mortified by your incisive and original criticism of an article that I am at best loosely associated with. A brilliant paraphrase of that tower of intellect, Bart Simpson's "I know you are, but what am I." You can be Frank, and Norman and Herbert too, for all I care. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Globalising modern accusations

The politicisation of science, in its negative sense (which is the only sense which we have WP:RSs on, to date), tends to become of importance when a (major) government develops an Orwellian aspects, and believes that it can remake the truth in its own image. If the "modern accusations" section had been written in the 1950s it would most probably have concentrated on the Soviet Union under Stalin, in the 1930s & 40s, Nazi Germany. That this article concentrates on the US is, I believe, because of the fact that current criticism is concentrated on the Bush Administration, not because of inattention to other countries.Can anybody name another country where this is a major issue (preferably with WP:RSs to back it up)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

First, I would encourage everyone to be cool and polite. Try to avoid edit warring of any sort and also refrain from making disparaging comments about other editors. Regarding the talk page material dispute, I would recommend asking a sysop to review the situation and provide some advice about editing the comments of others. The request should be polite and as neutral as possible. Regarding the general disagreement about content, I would recommend seeking independent assistance in settling the dispute and/or requesting broad outside comment. Vassyana (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Expression

Deleting entries that explain the details of a controversy with which you disagree is intellectually dishonest. See Resolving_disputes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scseig (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting POV, largely unverifiable unsourced, soapboxing, full of bare assertions and baseless accusations, is entirely intellectually honest & entirely consistent with wikipedia policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. The content you're trying to add is original research, and hence rightly removed. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Participation

Anyone not restricted by an arb ruling may use an article talk page. Removing or altering comments of others is blockable disruption (unless it's a privacy issue). Don't do it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Moody was planning - or trying to tell us - but I'm going to assume good faith (for a moment or two, anyway. ;-)

I gather Moody finds something one-sided about the viewpoint of this article, or that the article is too restricted in scope. I further assume that his comments along these lines are not meant to be a "discussion of the topic" but rather criticisms of Wikipedia's presentation of the topic.

Is this correct, Moody?

If so, perhaps I might point out that I also find the topic a bit one-sided. It emphasizes (what I call) the "liberal POV", i.e., that the Bush Administration has frequently and egregiously engaged in the politicization of science, along with other partisans such as Creationists.

I have attempted to dilute this one-sided presentation by offering some neutral background information. Although the "History" section I supplied, with Galileo, Lysenko and tobacco, was initially reverted as "POV" [7] - it was later restored by another editor.

If your intent here is to discuss how further improvements to the article can be made, please address me directly. Making this article better is the only thing on my mind when I come here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I direct Rlevse's attention to WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." I also direct Rlevse's attention to template:notaforum: "This is not a forum for general discussion of [article topic]. Any such messages will be deleted." I would suggest that Rlevse is in error. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

that template applies to "large amounts of" discussion. Read closer. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(1)The template does not restrict removal to people "restricted by an arb ruling", so contradicts your blanket prohibition above (in any case the "'large amounts of' discussion" applies to the placement of the template, not the principle it expresses); (2) WP:TALK (which I also cited) makes no mention of "'large amounts of' discussion". I would suggest that you Rlevse "read closer". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And I would agree (coming in from WP:AN). --Iamunknown 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was making a generic statement, not writing a full guideline. I'll point to the guides next time, though not very few edits fall under it. I'd suggest editors make sure there's a valid reason to remove comments before they do it. Most cases of this I've seen are edit wars. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble, Rlevse, is that you made an overly-generalised statement that ignored applicable guidelines (in spite of the fact that these guidelines had been explicitly and repeatedly cited as the reason for removing the thread to the editor in question's user talkpage). And, assuming that you meant "not very many edits fall under it", you obviously haven't spent to much time on the talkpages of creationism/evolution-related topics, where such off-topic/general-discussion-not-related-to-improvments-to-article edits are quite common. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-existent articles

Politics and science/Science and politics: Should the redirect here (or this be moved to one of those names), or just be left as red links (do they have any potential, if so)? Also politics of science. Richard001 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

An Inherently Politicized Topic

Good and valid entries have been viciously attacked and removed. Thus, a POV tag really MUST be PERMANENTLY appended at the head of this article. Science inherently involves the interpretation of data. This necessarily involves the point of view of one or more scientists--and sadly a plethora of policy makers, academic adminstrators, slanted editors and publishers, religious leaders and secular (non-scientist) philosophers all of which have no SCIENTIFIC justification for contributing an opinion. If scientists are persuaded to view the world is certain ways their results will be biased. Even when our bias is based upon more mundane issues such as utility or costs-vs-benefits, a bias still exists. Arguably we all have a world view and a value system making objectivity something of an illusion; therefore, all science is politicized to lesser and greater extremes. Saseigel (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing Wikipedia policies, I felt that semi-protected status was justified to avoid the removal of dissenting positions (which obviously weakens any arguments regarding this particular topic). Saseigel (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Place new threads at the bottom of talkpages, not the top.
2. Your demand that "a POV tag really MUST be PERMANENTLY appended at the head of this article" is a misuse of that template -- it is only for use in active & specific disputes.
3. Placing a {{pp-semi}} template on an article does not semi-protect it (that requires Administrator privileges), it is only meant to indicate that it has been semi-protected.
4. You have offered no explanation or justification of your massive restructuring of this article.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring

For the sake of clarity it seems preferable to place subsections which themselves have subsubsections (Goerge W. Bush &c) below subsections which are not actually subordinate to them. In this case the Globablization/USA tag is misleading otherwise. I actually revised much MORE and then moved back toward the original as much as I was able. A complete undo of my work seems rather excessive to me. At this point I'll withhold any further contributions to the primary article until I better understand why Hrafn deleted my work.Saseigel (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be no clarity advantage -- wiki-markup clearly differentiates between top-level sections and subsections, and places a line at the end of each top-section+its children. The 'Globablization/USA tag' is not misleading, as all the 'Modern accusations of politicization' are principally about the US (not just the 'George Bush' ones). If you revise simultaneously with bulk restructures, you can hardly be surprised if the latter masks the former, and that other editors only evaluate on the basis of what they can see. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and OR

Even the leading sentence looks like WP:OR and clearly it does not have a WP:NPOV, the participants of such scientific consensus hold the truth? And there are also a minority of scientists taken advantage of their "authoritative" status (on either side of a given issue) behaving like an interest group (I can provide examples, other than AWG), so scientist should be included in the lead as written today, because in recent decades, and in several fields, scientists are politicizing science, yes. The references included in the lead are all associated to Evolution vs Creationism in the US, that case is a no brainer, no good for a leading paragraph. The lead as it is now gives the false impression that such a scientific consensus do exist, but any such consensus in science is irrelevant. The concepts in the lead should come from reliable, authoritative and neutral sources, such as Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper. As the article on Scientific consensus says, such a consensus is not part of the scientific method. What we have in a given field is a paradigm which most practitioners adopt, until a better one appears (Kuhn), because the game of science is without end, and those who decide that scientific statements do not call for any further test (assume a dogmatic position and do not accept any criticism), retire from the game (Popper). So is part of the game to disagree, and as history of science has shown several times, just one scientist (Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc) is enough to start a whole new game, the field shifts paradigm. I strongly agree that until reliable sources, preferably before the smoking, global warming, and other similar public controversies took place, and until NPOV is fixed, the tag required several times above is required. At least let's have a decent and NPOV leading paragraph. Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, "the participants of such scientific consensus" hold the weight of evidence accrued under the scientific method -- i.e. the scientific consensus is built upon the foundation of the scientific method. Creationism has been politicising science at least since the Butler Act, making it the longest running example. I suspect neither Popper nor Kuhn would be relevant to this topic, as they dealt with what happened within science, not how science interacts with politics. The difference between "Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc" and those currently politicising science is that the former grouping produced positive results in terms of observations and/or predictions, whereas the latter typically work negatively by manufacturing illegitimate doubts that have nothing to do with the scientific method. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• My proposal for a leading paragraph is one with a real NPOV, one that does not refers exclusively to creationism (or the article name should be other) nor within the context of global warming or climate change (as it is written today seems to fit in the context of that controversy) or to any specific controversy; with no need to invoke scientific consensus, since this consensus is not part of the scientific method; and one that also considers the possibility that a group of scientists themselves might politicized the science, as a legitimate interest group (they are citizens also), and finally, a truly NPOV definition does not need to assume that such a politicization is negative nor that has to exist scientific consensus on the issue at hand. In order to simplified this discussion, for the time being let's save time by avoiding referencing everything we discussed here, whatever consensus is reached (if more editors participate), the final text must be properly referenced. As for including scientists as one possible interest groups, several well-known and documented examples exist, such as nuclear winter, global cooling and of course global warming (these examples illustrate that not necessarily the intentions have to be evil as the current text suggest talking about "manipulation"). In all cases concerned scientists try to move forward a political agenda, for the well-being of society. Just to try to move forward in the discussion, a proposal for a more neutral leading paragraph is the following:

The politicization of science is the use misuse of scientific knowledge, for legitimate purposes or not, to influence political decision-making. It usually occurs when government, business, or interest groups, including scientists themselves, use pressure to translate the findings of scientific research into public policy, or to influence the political agenda of a governing body, or even to influence policy makers to legislate on the way science is disseminated, reported or interpreted. Historically, interest groups have conducted campaigns, usually with key involvement of the mass media, to promote their interests or specific political agenda, for better or for worse, with incomplete science, or in defiance of the dominant school of thought or the scientific paradigm accepted by most practitioners of the field in question, or even with pseudo-science.

As an example of the applicability of this more neutral and comprehensive definition, please check the facts about the global cooling nuclear winter of the early 1980's. I can provide reliable sources to support how a group of scientists, led by Carl Sagan used their research findings (without scientific consensus and actually at an early stage of research) to campaign a very noble end, to add further deterrents against nuclear war, and mainly, to try to stop or slow-down the nuclear arsenal race of the Reagan years. In fact, later on I would like to include it in the article. This article section on the continental rivalry also clearly illustrates how scientists can politicized science, in this case, simply for the sake of national pride. Based in all of these considerations, I will put the NOPV banner until this issue is settled in the Talk page. Mariordo (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with this proposed version -- it appears to conflate the use of scientific information as an input into political decision-making (which is perfectly legitimate, and thus uncontroversial, and not a subject noteworthy enough to merit significant mention) and legitimate activism on the part of scientists (also perfectly legitimate -- last I heard free speech wasn't abrogated by a science PhD) with the manipulation/misrepresentation of scientific conclusions for political ends, which is the current focus of the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the word "misuse" instead of "use" fix the wrong impression that science can not be use as input. Mariordo (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Your version is about science (or the science lobby, if you prefer) in some way influencing politics. It always has done this at least at the low level of begging for funding from whoever had the power to hand it out; in that sense science has always been political. And there are countless cases of scientists attempting to influence policy on the basis of their (forever tentative) conclusions. In contrast, this article is about a specific type of influence of politics on science. It completely ignores the major influence, which is that political decisions determine the topics on which scientific research is focussed. That's the penalty science has to pay for being funded by governments. Instead, this article is about cases where politics is used to suppress inconvenient scientific results, which are relatively rare because in the long run it is counter-productive. Nevertheless, the fact that 3/4 of this article is focussed on the Bush administration is a grotesque failure of proper balance under NPOV...see my comment below. PaddyLeahy (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How much coverage the Bush Admin should get is a matter of WP:DUE, and my impression has been that most of the WP:RS material on this specific subject has been focused on this administration. If there are WP:RSs that are being under/un-represented, I'd suggest that you bring them to our attention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Apologies for lack of references, I'm currently based in Italy and don't have access to a useful English-language library:

• Nazi support for racist anthropology, eugenics, and, on a lighter note, Hollow Earth theory.
• Pre-WWII ideological opposition to relativity theory in the Soviet Union.
• Ideological opposition to David Bohm's theory of quantum mechanics due to his professed marxism (Wolfgang Pauli described the theory as "merely ideological").
• Government AIDS denialism, most famously in South Africa.
• Anti-drugs policy, which frequently runs counter to academic research. E.g. very current re-classification of cannabis in the UK as a class-B drug contrary to advice of the government-appointed experts. Similarly, ecstasy is rated as more dangerous than it actually is by politicians responding to campaigns by tabloid newspapers.
• Government opposition by third-world countries to food aid containing genetically-modified products, also sometimes to health campaigns (such as Polio vaccination); the implication is that these are attempts by a malevolent West to poison the poor.

These are just off the top of my head, there must be many more. PaddyLeahy (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You have provided several good examples supporting that the current lead needs improvement, because now it looks very oriented against the Bush adm. and global warming. I think we can work the proposed text to reflect better all of those missuses and flagrant denial of science, at least without talking about consensus science. Somebody wants to give it a try in proposing a modify version? Mariordo (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Were we all planning on writing the article as a condemnation of political interference with science? If so, that is a laudable elevation of values - but hardly neutral.

How about straddling the fence on this one? Just say that some people (and we should name them) say that government should not interfere with science by suppressing results which run counter to policy. Even if we say this, there will of course be a dispute between those who assign the Bush administration a near monopoly on this dastardly practice (such as those fun-loving fellas from Cambridge, MA) - and those who blame the Clinton administration for it (Gore on global warming, for example).

My question is this: are we willing to agree to disagree? Or are (some of us) determined to "tell the truth" and suppress the opposing point of view? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

'Galileo and the Catholic Church' section

I am intending deleting this section as:

1. It is unsourced; and
2. It is a highly ambiguous example of 'Politicization of science' as:
   1. The meddling was primarily religious not political (and any politics involved was primarily the internal politics of the Catholic Church); and
   2. It dates from an era where the boundaries between science, philosophy and religion were far less clearly defined than they are today.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is clearly religion vs science, thus it does not belongs to this article.Mariordo (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is a pretty poor and very WP:Coatracky article. Maybe it should be deleted, and if so getting rid of some of the "cover" is a good way to start. Of course, if you think the article is worthwhile, you would be keen to fill it out with other examples, and certainly should keep this bit. You could fill this section with as many sources as you like by copying from Galileo affair. Also, given that the religion in question was also the government of the territory where the incident occurred (Papal states), not to mention a central political player in the whole of Italy at the time, the distinction between religion and politics is a bit moot. It has certainly been argued e.g. by Berthold Brecht, that the Galileo affair was principally a political conflict: Galileo and/or the Church perceived an attack on its dogma as an an attack on its political legitimacy. PaddyLeahy (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Paddy's right. We should be looking for more incident examples and the Galileo affair has (rightly or wrongly) been described as a pre-eminent example by more than a few scholars of politics interfering with scientific results. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we need to find citations that make this point clear. The current citations don't (three are malformed -- linking to non-existent intra-page anchors, two are to Italian fragments of unclear context and/or relevance, and the remaining one makes no direct mention of politics). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

seems to mainly be about the Bush adminstration

With the exception of a brief gloss at the top about Lysenkoism, the article is wholly about the United States in the past 8 years or so. As such, wouldn't it be better broken out into something like Politicization of science during the George W. Bush administration? If this is, alternately, intended to be a general article, then it needs a lot of work, with a huge cutting down (or splitting out) of recent stuff and a huge amount of additions from older stuff. Where are the sections on racial hygiene, eugenics, Deutsche Physik, the Scopes Trial, etc.? From a different perspective, the critiques from the science-skeptical left (e.g. the strong programme crowd) that science is inherently politicized? If this is just intended to be a pop-summary of current controversies, it should have a much less grandiose title. Otherwise, it should properly treat the subject. But I'm not sure this is a particularly coherent topic to cover in an article, given the huge scope and lack of good overview sources. --Delirium (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Waxman is not the best example here, given the way he himself politicizes science when it's in his interest to do so, although in the examples discussed his work was exemplary.123.217.131.183 (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)