{"id":361861,"date":"2025-01-13T14:38:17","date_gmt":"2025-01-13T13:38:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=361861"},"modified":"2025-01-13T14:38:19","modified_gmt":"2025-01-13T13:38:19","slug":"top-journal-scientists-should-be-more-not-less-political","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=361861","title":{"rendered":"Top Journal: Scientists Should Be More, Not Less, Political"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Daily Sceptic<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Noah Carl<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science<\/em>, nominally the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, is at it again. In November, it published an\u00a0editorial<\/a>\u00a0by Agustin Fuentes titled \u2018Scientists as political advocates. The gist is that scientists and scientific institutions need to be even\u00a0more<\/em>\u00a0political than they already are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Back in 2023, Fuentes wrote an editorial<\/a> that claimed \u201cbeing woke is just doing good 21st-century science\u201d. And in 2021, he wrote one that described<\/a> Charles Darwin as \u201can English man with injurious and unfounded prejudices\u201d. Indeed, the prolific Fuentes has penned no less than eight editorials for Science<\/em> over the last four years \u2013 suggesting that the editors like what he\u2019s selling.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Returning to \u2018Scientists as political advocates\u2019, Fuentes begins by warning readers that science is \u201cunder attack\u201d. Does he mean that it\u2019s under attack from woke ideologues trying to bend science into a tool for promoting \u2018diversity\u2019? Or that it\u2019s under attack from public health officials trying to shut down discussion over the harms of pandemic policies? Of course not. He means that it\u2019s under attack from his<\/em> political opponents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Almost all the examples Fuentes gives involve accusations that some person or organisation on the political right is attacking science. He isn\u2019t worried about attempts to redefine<\/a> basic biological concepts like \u2018sex\u2019 or scientists being made the subjects of censorious petitions<\/a> for opposing mask mandates. This isn\u2019t to say that Fuentes\u2019 examples don\u2019t qualify as attacks \u2013 just that his presentation is so obviously one-sided and tendentious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the next paragraph, Fuentes manages to derive the conclusion that \u201cscience in many societies is political and always has been\u201d by quoting a recent statement on \u201cscientific responsibility\u201d from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which incidentally publishes Science<\/em>. I\u2019m not convinced. Sure, scientists should act responsibly, just like everyone else. But this doesn\u2019t mean that science as an institution<\/em> is or should be political.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People like myself who oppose the politicisation of science aren\u2019t saying that scientists should be free to act irresponsibly, or that they should be indifferent to \u201cthe interest of humanity\u201d (Fuentes\u2019 words) in their role as private citizens. We\u2019re saying that science itself should be kept separate from politics, as prescribed by the four Mertonian norms<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Scientists must be judged on impersonal criteria. (No firing people for \u2018racism\u2019.)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. They must share their data and results with one another. (No preventing access to datasets.)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. They must seek to advance knowledge, not pursue personal or political goals. (No requiring people to promote \u2018diversity\u2019.)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. And they must remain detached from the subject matter of their research. (No promoting feel-good dogmas.)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    In the next paragraph, Fuentes reaffirms his woke credentials, complaining that \u201cattacks are often especially intense when the scientists are also women, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color), queer, or from other marginalized groups\u201d. What he\u2019s basically saying is that attacks on white male scientists are the least<\/em> intense, which is more or less the opposite of the truth. Attacks on white male scientists tend to be the most<\/em> intense precisely because such individuals rank lowest in the woke\u2019s victimhood hierarchy. Have any black female scientists been the subject of a censorious petition signed by hundreds of their colleagues?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Fuentes proceeds to criticise the \u201cidea that scientists must maintain an air of neutrality\u201d, which, he claims, is \u201cethically problematic and practically detrimental\u201d in the face of an \u201canti-science onslaught\u201d. He seems to believe the only reason people aren\u2019t on board with his political agenda is that too many scientists are laying low because they\u2019re hung up on this whole neutrality thing. But scientists in many fields aren\u2019t<\/em> keeping quiet: they\u2019re engaging<\/a> in precisely the kind of activism that Fuentes wants. And in doing so, they\u2019re contributing to the loss of public trust in science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Fuentes\u2019 call for super-charging the politicisation of science somehow isn\u2019t very compelling. Traditional scientific values like neutrality and impartiality \u2013 they\u2019re worth hanging on to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Science, nominally the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, is at it again. In November, it published an\u00a0editorial\u00a0by Agustin Fuentes titled \u2018Scientists as political advocates. The gist is that scientists and scientific institutions need to be even\u00a0more\u00a0political than they already are.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":361863,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691825958,691832594,691832593,691821245],"class_list":{"0":"post-361861","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-activism","9":"tag-bipoc","10":"tag-science-magazine","11":"tag-woke","13":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Screenshot-2025-01-13-143415.png?fit=1452%2C786&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1w8t","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":218760,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=218760","url_meta":{"origin":361861,"position":0},"title":"Science + Politics = Politics","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"A top scientific journal places political correctness above the search for truth.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-684.png?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-684.png?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-684.png?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-684.png?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-684.png?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":365888,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=365888","url_meta":{"origin":361861,"position":1},"title":"The Vibe comes for Academic Publishing","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/02\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"There is a long list of things that have been singled out as needing fixing in our current system of academic scientific publishing.","rel":"","context":"In \"academic scientific publishing\"","block_context":{"text":"academic scientific publishing","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=academic-scientific-publishing"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0-The-Vibe-comes-for-Academic-Publishing.jpeg?fit=1200%2C872&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0-The-Vibe-comes-for-Academic-Publishing.jpeg?fit=1200%2C872&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0-The-Vibe-comes-for-Academic-Publishing.jpeg?fit=1200%2C872&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0-The-Vibe-comes-for-Academic-Publishing.jpeg?fit=1200%2C872&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0-The-Vibe-comes-for-Academic-Publishing.jpeg?fit=1200%2C872&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":217278,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=217278","url_meta":{"origin":361861,"position":2},"title":"Science Discredited by \u201eScientists\u201c","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Why appeal to the authority of science to win support for a series of politically contentious policies \u2014 and then diminish its authority?","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-217.png?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-217.png?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-217.png?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-217.png?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-217.png?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":249346,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=249346","url_meta":{"origin":361861,"position":3},"title":"Nature discovers that political endorsements reduce their scientific credibility","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"24\/03\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"When the formerly esteemed journal\u00a0Nature\u00a0endorsed one side of politics in 2020, apparently it didn\u2019t change any votes, but about a third of Trump supporters decided the science it published was politically biased too.\u00a0 The loss of trust in\u00a0Nature\u00a0was so strong that it tarnished the whole field of US science. (Zhang\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1002.png?fit=1200%2C1176&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1002.png?fit=1200%2C1176&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1002.png?fit=1200%2C1176&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1002.png?fit=1200%2C1176&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1002.png?fit=1200%2C1176&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":372669,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=372669","url_meta":{"origin":361861,"position":4},"title":"Science Magazine Unfairly Attacks the Journal of the Academy of Public Health","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"29\/03\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Only two days after the\u00a0Journal of the Academy of Public Health\u2018s official launch, Science Magazine\u00a0criticised\u00a0it in a news item. A scientist I had recommended as a member of our Academy wrote to me that the fact that Science feared our new journal suggested that we were on the right track.","rel":"","context":"In \"COVID-19 pandemic\"","block_context":{"text":"COVID-19 pandemic","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=covid-19-pandemic"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0ScientistInWheelchair-1600x900-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0ScientistInWheelchair-1600x900-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0ScientistInWheelchair-1600x900-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0ScientistInWheelchair-1600x900-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0ScientistInWheelchair-1600x900-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":301387,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=301387","url_meta":{"origin":361861,"position":5},"title":"The Tip of the\u00a0Iceberg","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In September last year, John Ridgway published here at Cliscep a piece titled\u00a0Burn the Witch!, about an article written by climate scientist Patrick T Brown in which he (Dr Brown) suggested \u201cthat journals such as Nature and Science were biased towards articles that are focussed upon a particular narrative.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate\u00a0Science\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate\u00a0Science","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-science-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/01_LaLO33fk1d-WYMPCs8MgvQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/01_LaLO33fk1d-WYMPCs8MgvQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/01_LaLO33fk1d-WYMPCs8MgvQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/01_LaLO33fk1d-WYMPCs8MgvQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/01_LaLO33fk1d-WYMPCs8MgvQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361861","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=361861"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361861\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":361865,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361861\/revisions\/361865"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/361863"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=361861"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=361861"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=361861"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}