4 Comments

Beautiful discussion.

Expand full comment

Re bias, be sure to include the Union of Concerned Scientists' Disinformation Playbook. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/disinformation-playbook This is the intentional bias present in, for instance, the electromagnetic radiation bioeffects science, and in other science as well. The inconvenient truths. Despite scientists' efforts to get information out to the public that could protect them from EMR harm, the wireless industry has continually pumped false information in an attempt to protect their products. They've used the same playbook since 1980s and 90s. Non-experts in the field spread that false information unwittingly or for a consultant's fee.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your suggestion. I agree that there is bias toward rejection of scientific findings by commercial interests that feel they are disadvantaged by them. However, the point of the upcoming post is not bias by outside interests, but the bias that occurs within the scientific community itself. The point you are raising, helping science in iis conflicts with commerce is the overall goal of these posts.

Expand full comment

yes it seems crucial to distinguish between the ways commercial and/or political interests influence the biases the public receives as science as well as the ways that politically powerful commercial interests even have some power over what stories and science and research sees the light of day and which may be suppressed, and on the first hand the ongoing validity of scientific process. I weary when people confuse the two, throwing out "science" with the unclean bathwater of politics and commerce.

Expand full comment