5 thoughts on “Ideological Capture Of Scientific Institutions”
I love the label “Narrative Science”. I know that in the Earth Sciences, “climate change” is poured over everything like ketchup. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has become very political. Sad.
More confirmation of Eisenhower’s observations in his farewell address of the great institutional risks of the US (as noted before by Larry J). He warned of two great “complexes”, the “military-industrial complex” and a “scientific-technological elite”. Unfortunately, the latter didn’t get a catchy name and hence, is little known to history.
But this is one of the consequences. When so much revolves around public funding of scientific endeavor, then it is beholden to the control of that funding. When those sources get corrupted by ideological forces (which is so common in US politics that we presently have several such competing forces today), then you get this.
People rightly questioned the integrity of tobacco industry scientists, but no one questions the ethics or motives of those who are beholden to government grants. Those who pay for research want results that match their interests, be they government or corporate interests. He who has the gold makes the rules.
True innovation is impossible within a bureaucracy. It is antithetical to bureaucratic methods and goals.
It has affected large corporations, the legacy media, NASA and all other government agencies, and Hollywood.
What we’ve witnessed over the last few years has been a worldwide coup, a Bureaucratic coup.
Yes, while it *looks* like the triumph of the Scholar/Official State, that has real problems:
1.) The output of the University System that trains government clerks is so poor that many private companies are starting to disregard degree-holding as a factor in hiring for middle management entry jobs.
2.) The number of US males graduating from, and now even enrolling to, universities, continues its decline, with total enrollment down by 9%+.
3.) The markets are reacting badly, and shifting from technical investments that once paid well, and now often fail to, to new ones that look more promising.
I love the label “Narrative Science”. I know that in the Earth Sciences, “climate change” is poured over everything like ketchup. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has become very political. Sad.
More confirmation of Eisenhower’s observations in his farewell address of the great institutional risks of the US (as noted before by Larry J). He warned of two great “complexes”, the “military-industrial complex” and a “scientific-technological elite”. Unfortunately, the latter didn’t get a catchy name and hence, is little known to history.
But this is one of the consequences. When so much revolves around public funding of scientific endeavor, then it is beholden to the control of that funding. When those sources get corrupted by ideological forces (which is so common in US politics that we presently have several such competing forces today), then you get this.
People rightly questioned the integrity of tobacco industry scientists, but no one questions the ethics or motives of those who are beholden to government grants. Those who pay for research want results that match their interests, be they government or corporate interests. He who has the gold makes the rules.
True innovation is impossible within a bureaucracy. It is antithetical to bureaucratic methods and goals.
It has affected large corporations, the legacy media, NASA and all other government agencies, and Hollywood.
What we’ve witnessed over the last few years has been a worldwide coup, a Bureaucratic coup.
Yes, while it *looks* like the triumph of the Scholar/Official State, that has real problems:
1.) The output of the University System that trains government clerks is so poor that many private companies are starting to disregard degree-holding as a factor in hiring for middle management entry jobs.
2.) The number of US males graduating from, and now even enrolling to, universities, continues its decline, with total enrollment down by 9%+.
3.) The markets are reacting badly, and shifting from technical investments that once paid well, and now often fail to, to new ones that look more promising.