Science has ceased to be a search for truth, and has instead become a tool of politics. Gone are the days of solitary researchers toiling away for years in their garages. Now, the vast majority of studies are conducted for the pleasure – and profit – of wealthy patrons. The wealthiest of all patrons is, of course, the government, and as government takes over the funding of more and more research, the politicization of science is only getting worse.
We are told that this is necessary for science to be impartial, but the government is far from impartial. Bureaucrats and politicians are motivated by self-interest and, like everyone else, they have an agenda. Scientists are self-interested too, and they are not stupid. They know that failing to produce the results the government wants will result in a loss of funding, so they will do whatever is necessary to massage data and fool themselves into thinking they are being rigorous when in fact they are being sloppy.
Granted, science funded by private companies faces a similar problem, but everyone is aware of it. If McDonald’s sponsors a study concluding that hamburgers are good for you, everyone is going to consider the source and it is doubtful that such research will be taken seriously. When studies are privately funded, however, at least there is competition. Since every player in a market wants their viewpoint represented, the resulting diversity of research helps keep people honest and weed out the most flawed studies.
People are widely skeptical of corporate research, and these studies are rarely used to influence major changes in public policy. Government research, on the other hand, gives the impression of legitimacy and non-partisanship. People trust government research for the same reason they trust PBS. It’s publicly funded, and we are the public, so it must represent us, right?
The faux-legitimacy of government funding can be used as a tool in politics to advance a particular agenda. If “science” can be said to dictate a particular course of action, how can anyone disagree without appearing to be “anti-science?” The battle to use science to influence policy can be seen on constant display in the nutrition industry, with activists clamoring to get certain foods banned and other special interests fighting to preserve their legality. Fortunately, the people who want to ban food have so far been beaten back by a complete paucity of evidence to support their position, but there’s no telling how long that will last. A scarier and more immediate problem comes from the government recent attempts to assume the role of de facto climate scientist.
Now that the climate change narrative is falling apart, those invested in the story of humanity’s destruction of the planet are doing everything they can to prop it up. President Obama is creating Climate Hubs to study the effects of climate change, and he’s asking Congress to create a $1 billion climate fund. He’s sinking more and more taxpayer dollars into promoting the idea that, unless we take drastic, expensive and economically devastating actions to promote administration favorites like green energy and carbon taxes, we will all be living underwater soon. Even Secretary of State John Kerry took time to step outside his usual role as diplomat to engage in some hyperbolic scare-mongering, claiming that climate change is as great a danger to the world as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
The politicization of science has dangerous consequences, not just for our wallets, but for the perception of science as a whole. The Australian literary journal Quadrant warns of a scientific dark age, where all research is marked by suspicion and distrust. If people begin to view the scientific method as hopelessly tainted by politics, the consequences on future innovation and the spread of knowledge will be dire.