Is Scandal Inevitable when Scientists Become Activists?
By Jonathan Bean • Friday December 18, 2009 1:27 PM PDT • 1 Comment
Crosspost from a new blog on science policy, http://blindsciencepolicy.blogspot.com/
Was ClimateGate inevitable? Moreover, with all the negative attention given to corporate-funded research (supposed conflict of interest), what about government-funded research? If you research global warming and conclude there is no (or little) problem, how much will the government throw at a problem that doesn’t exist? On the other hand, if your research scares the bejesus out of government officials (and the public), how much will various government spend?
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, “billions and billions . . . “
Tags: Energy, Environment 
When scientists become activists and are fed on a very healthy diet of billions of dollars of government funding the answer is yes.
If the question of conflict of interests arises for corporate-funded research where we are only talking about millions of dollars available, how much more so is it a problem for government-funded research where billions of dollars are available?
Another important question, to which I also think the answer is in the affirmative, is, “is poor science the inevitable result of scientists becoming activists?” Activism requires a narrowing of vision. One has to be a true believer in a cause to become an activist. What kind of scientist, they are people after all, can be a true believer and remain objective especially if his activism takes place in the same field in which he carries out his research?
RickC | Dec 19, 2009 | Reply