gavel-and-stethoscope-on-gradated-background-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpg
Gavel and Stethoscope on Gradated Background
Photo by Andy Dean on Adobe Stock
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Print
arroba Email

Humanize Science Journals Have Become Intensely Political

Original at National Review

I have related here on several occasions how intensely political supposedly objective science and medical journals have become. The New England Journal of Medicine pushes progressive politics all of the time, as just one example. So does Science, which for example, has endorsed the “nature rights” movement.

Nature joined the crowd too in publishing an hysterical jeremiad against President Trump by Jeff Tollefson, its D.C.-based reporter. But if you read the lengthy attack, its most bitter complaints are about intensely believed political and policy differences, not actual examples of Trump being somehow “anti-science.”

For example, construes every Trump action on COVID in the most negative light possible. He also attacks Trump’s immigration policy. From, How Trump Damaged Science–and Why It Could Take Decades to Recover”:

Trump has also eroded America’s position on the global stage through isolationist policies and rhetoric. By closing the nation’s doors to many visitors and non-European immigrants, he has made the United States less inviting to foreign students and researchers. And by demonizing international associations such as the World Health Organization, Trump has weakened America’s ability to respond to global crises and isolated the country’s science.

It’s kind of hard to “demonize” the WHO. The organization lied blatantly about COVID and was clearly in the back pocket of the CCP’s propaganda campaign on the issue. Trump’s instituting policies to reflect that reality is not anti-science. Nor are immigration policies, with which one can agree or disagree.

Of course, the unforgivable sin was pulling out of the phony Paris Climate Accord:

The Trump administration formally filed the paperwork to exit the Paris agreement last year, and the US withdrawal will become official on 4 November, one day after the presidential election. Most nations have vowed to press forward even without the United States, and the European Union has already helped to fill the leadership void by pressing nations to bolster their efforts, which China did on 22 September when it announced that it aims to be carbon neutral by 2060.

Oooh! By 2060! Few of us will be alive then to ensure they fulfill their promise. And never mind that the USA has been among the most successful countries in the world at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions because of our bounteous use of natural gas.

Science, medical, and bioethics journals have been assimilated into the progressive ideological infrastructure. Keep that in mind when they publish “studies” and policy positions — all touted by the propaganda wing of the infrastructure, a.k.a, the MSM — that push ideology as if it were objective science.

Wesley J. Smith

Chair and Senior Fellow, Center on Human Exceptionalism
Wesley J. Smith is Chair and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. Wesley is a contributor to National Review and is the author of 14 books, in recent years focusing on human dignity, liberty, and equality. Wesley has been recognized as one of America’s premier public intellectuals on bioethics by National Journal and has been honored by the Human Life Foundation as a “Great Defender of Life” for his work against suicide and euthanasia. Wesley’s most recent book is Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine, a warning about the dangers to patients of the modern bioethics movement.