Talk:Politicization of science/Archive 1

message: Why is it that the people who don't believe in global warming are the same people who don't believe in the ozone-hole? The two are different phenomenon. So the fact that the same people disbelieve both tells me that their views are motivated less by science and more by some sort of vague anti-environmentalism... Evercat 22:33, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed the same thing, but sadly it runs in reverse: those that *do* believe in GW belive in OD and reverse... I can be made into a useful argument with more care, though, since OD is essentially done: there is no real argument except for the wackos: whereas with GW there is still some room for reasonable doubt, perhaps. William M. Connolley 22:03, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Ah why Green peace believe that both ozone hole and global warming to be both scientifically true when each are unrelated phenomenon. The fact that they do believe so tells me that their views are motivated less by science and more by some sort of vague green ideologies. Just an example of false argument. :) FWBOarticle  [16:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The politicisation of science happen on the both side of the debate. I will try to make the article bit more comprehensive. FWBOarticle [23:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWBOarticle, could you sign with four tildes (~~~~), please? Knowing when people made remarks is handy. Cheers, Daniel Collins 18:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to revise my Engrish edit often. For this reason, sigining with four tildes would be inappropriate. If the talk page is long, I utlise (=) or (:) so people can follow the debate. Cheers. FWBOarticle [01:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More comprehensive 

message: Thank you for preserving the Frederick Seitz example in a footnote, FeloniousMonk.
By the way, I re-read NPOV on 'undue weight' and it said:
* ...the 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.
Wouldn't you say that a retired official of a major scientific organization (president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1962 until 1969) is 'prominent'? --Uncle Ed 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seitz is a confirmed global warming skeptic. Global warming skeptics are in the minority within the scientific community. NPOV: Undue weight says "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..." FeloniousMonk 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Youn left out have been published by a reliable source – has Seitz? Not that I'm aware William M. Connolley 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: The article covers current event pretty well, but has no historical background leading up to them or historical examples. This is a blank that needs to be filled in. FeloniousMonk 15:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical politicization of science 

message: Seitz and Lindzen make some implausible and unreferenced/unsupported claims about funding for dissenters being cut off (given the state of the current Bush govt, this seems to me quite implausibly the wrong-way-round). But... that isn't why I removed them, but because, as PoS is currently defined, they are irrelevant to the article William M. Connolley 20:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Smacks of suppressing complaints of suppression. Better we put their views back in. Otherwise, the article will go from mostly to completely one-sided. --Uncle Ed 20:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't put their views in just for balance, they have to actually be *relevant*. As PoS is currently defined, their crit is just not relevant. You could redefine the article meaning so they became relevant, I suppose William M. Connolley 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  William is right about relevance here. FeloniousMonk 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How could "pressure to influence the findings [or] the way the research is disseminated" be construed to exclude supression? 75.35.113.208 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, Seitz's views were irrelevant then too, I was too timid then William M. Connolley 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if you're not going to explain why they're 'irrelevant' I'll just put back them in. Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. --Uncle Ed 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think they are irrelevant for the reasons I've already expounded. You're welcome to say why you think they are relevant, since I've just decided I'm a bit less sure of myself :-) William M. Connolley 21:51-21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Having read them, my opinion is that they are indeed irrelevant. •Jim62sch• 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppression of dissent 

message: If this article needs a section on eugenics (and I cannot say that it does not deserve one), it must be written properly. Not be a malformed quote of some science fiction author.
Chrichton is not an expert on eugenics, nor on the politics of science. Comparing eugenics to global warming is unfair since on the global warming is well accepted science, whereas eugenics never was, atleast not to the same degree. Michael Crichton (and the section author) has the rather transparent aim of casting doubt on global warming through innuendo, ironically an act of politicising science.
Scientific fact is unaffacted by politics. — Dunc|☺ 17:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Dunc, don't you realise that Crichton is a reliable source on everything under the moon? •Jim62sch• 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Michael Crichton is not an expert on the topics of Eugenics, Global Warming, or the Politicization of science . Period. FeloniousMonk 16:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenics 

message: Why is the second paragraph an example, when there is already an example section. That should be a summary. 75.35.113.208 07:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LEAD]] 

message: This article has a liberal bias and only points to incidents involving republicans. There have been numerous incidents by the left including the complete falsification of science by environmental groups who believe the ends justify the means. There needs to be a politicization of wikipedia article written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.220.221 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I have tried to pare it down to reasonable lengths and will continue to do so later. --Rotten 11:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article bloated and biased 

message: I'm not clear to me why this article exists. The "politicization" of science ought to be subtopic within some article on the philosophy of science or social science, as it is intimately bound up with debates about the neutrality/objectivity/Truthfulness of science. 70.76.176.205 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtopic 

message: I added this:
In 2007, the Democratic Governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, and state Sen. Brad Avakian, worked to remove the title of State Climatologist from George Taylor due to his belief that human activities are not the main cause of global climate change. Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change. Tucker Carlson of MSNBC reported "The Democratic governor of that state has announced that he will trip George Taylor of his title for daring to question the causes of global warming. Keep in mind that the governor is not a scientist. He hasn‘t cited any dishonesty in Taylor‘s scholarship. He just doesn‘t think he ought to be allowed to disagree with the conventional wisdom on global warming."
Which clearly fits the definition: "The politicization of science occurs when government, business or interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research, or influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted."
They are attempting to pass laws to influence the way the state climatologist reports and disseminates his research, they want a state climatologist who agrees with their views. Please tell me how you believe this does not fit the definition as presented. --Theblog 05:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Which clearly fits the definition" Only if one overlooks the glaring fact that Taylor is completely out of step with the scientific community on the topic. This is the Politicization of science article, not Politicization of pseudoscience. Your example is a counter example. FeloniousMonk 06:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it is not a counterexample, it fits the definition (which is correct IMO), it should be included or the definition changed to something different. Would you switch the definition to: "The politicization of science occurs when government, business or interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research with findings outside of scientific consensus view, or influence the way the research with findings outside of consensus view is disseminated, reported or interpreted." ?? --Theblog 06:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's a valid example at all, and I think FM presents the exact reason it isn't. Additionally, we don't redefine topics to include pet examples. Odd nature 22:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that this is an invalid example because it's "out of step" but rather because he fails to present "the findings of scientific research." At least he fails to present any significant findings. Mrobfire 22:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good point as well. Odd nature 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously the state climatologist would present research now and then, but I changed the definition to fit the above comments by FM and ON and I am satisfied with it. --Theblog 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oregon climatologist 

message: Original research removed from article:
:In February 2007, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow made the claim that the United States was doing better at reducing greenhouse gases than the European Union -- a claim that turned out to be based on a subset of a complete data set -- in this case from 2000 to 2004 alone. When the complete record from 1990 (the index year for the Kyoto Protocol) is used, emissions from the European Union dropped 15% while US emissions rose.
This is an argument that the White House politicized a research finding, right?
If we are to use this as an objective or neutral "example" of what politicization is, then we need to either:
#Make it clear that the White House really did politicize the science (i.e., that it's not just some other partisan calling the kettle black; or,
#Simply list it as an accusation of wrong-doing.
If we refrain from endorsing the accusation – which I think we have to do anyway, to be NPOV about it – then we should probably also include any rebuttals from the accused party. Unless of course Snow turned around and admitted he was guilty as charged. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific Snow 

message: Why is this an id wikiproject article? Why the big tags at the top of this discussion page? Vsmith 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellegent design tags 

message: *They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism. NY Times
*Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Richard Lindzen
How many more refs do we need to support the sentence about "decrying alarmism"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and put them in!Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your citations don't seem to support the point.  One is an editorial of one skeptic who seems to be claiming alarmism in climate science.  The other is in regards to how Al Gore's scientific audience was alarmed by his alarmism.  Perhaps you should include a note about how climate scientists who subscribe to AGW are put-off by Al Gore's alarmism. johnpseudo 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the links could be useful, but if they are to be used, they should be worked into the article in a specific context.Athene cunicularia (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 22:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as these references all come from the same limited group of sceptics – that have been vocal about this again and again – the credibility of their views as being more than a fringe minority is seriously in doubt. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to global warming alarmism 

message: We can use this link to support the section on climate change: Study Finds White House Manipulation on Climate Science – Christian Science MonitorAthene cunicularia (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a decent secondary source. We'll add it once the article is unprotected. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Change 

message: Current lead sentence:
The politicization of science occurs when government, business or interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which differ from the majority view, or influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted.
Proposed lead sentence:
Politicization of science is the use of pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which differ from the majority view, or to influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted. It most often occurs when government, business or interest groups apply legal or economic pressure.
The reason I prefer this rewording is that it (1) provides a general definition of "politicization" which all sides can agree with, while it (2) distinguishes the types of pressure from the act of using pressure to get influence.
Now, where am I going with this? I would like to provide examples of governments in history, beginning with the Catholic Church as a sort of government (they had the power to summon, to try, to sentence, so they pass the "quacks like a duck test"); plus the USSR.
Then I would like to invite other writers to chime in with other examples, from history or current events.
In case of subjects which are hotly debated (especially those in the last decade or two), I wonder if we might call these "controversies" rather "examples". We could present both sides of each controversy in summary with a  link to existing "spin-off" articles on topics like Intelligent Design and the global warming controversy.
Since some contributors to this article have insisted that I make no edits without prior discussion, I invite discussion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed simplification of definition 

message: Should we present only one viewpoint on the Bush administration? Or maybe include at least a pro forma denial?
*The Bush administration was quick to dispute Carmona. "It has always been this administration's position that public health policy should be rooted in sound science," Bill Hall, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told the Times.
*The surgeon general "is the leading voice for the health of all Americans," Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, told the newspaper. "It's disappointing to us," Lawrimore said, "if he failed to use this position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation." 
I'm not going to insert this, unless it is clarified whether we are using Bush as (1) an example of politicization or (2) a case where there is a dispute over whether Bush is politicizing.
The historical examples are clear cut and undisputed. Is the case of Bush equally clear cut? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current issus like stem cell research