|
I concur. Political decisions (eg., public health, environment, technology) should be informed by scientific evidence, not by political ideology (and as such research requires proper funding). Politics should not dictate what science does; science should
guide public policy. Otherwise, interference in science leads to bias and the suppression of inconvenient truths. That's why it's so important that we, as scientists, protect scientific integrity, academic freedom, and free speech— principles that have always
been fundamental to our work.
If a researcher’s line of inquiry is suppressed for revealing inconvenient truths, it’s a cause for concern that we can’t ignore.
Your research may be next.
Ibi
On 24. Mar 2025, at 11.32, Goodman, Dan <d.goodman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Science is and always will be political for the simple reason that science is the pursuit of truth, and truth is dangerous to those who seek unrestrained power. I can understand the desire not to have to engage with politics and just get on
with your work, but that won't stop them from coming for you.
Doug, the people being targeted are not ideological and they didn't bring this on themselves. They are people stating basic facts about biology, and the climate. They are people who think that we should care about the health of women and people
of all skin colours. Saying that these things are "ideological" is actually ideological, and profoundly antithetical to facts and reason.
Science will suffer lasting damage from this, but it will not be the fault of scientists.
Dan Goodman
This message was written on my phone, apologies for brevity.
From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Douglas Scott <jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:31:55 am
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Silence from leaders in auditory science
I agree. While I understand that these things affect people's careers and income streams, the fundamental principle that politics and science don't mix should remain. The problem is exactly this: If you are tying your research to an ideology
and viciously attack anyone of an opposing ideology for failing to say and do the right things it's essentially warfare by other means.
You might win a battle here and there, but everyone (and science in general) loses in the end when things devolve to this level.
Doug
I am saddened to see the Auditory List devolving into a political battleground. If additional political "discourse" is needed, there is certainly no shortage of other places on the web where it can be found.
From my perspective, the -central- problem with US politics is the increasing polarization of the electorate. Gone are the moderate statesmen/women that seek a fair compromise acceptable to most. I put the blame for this situation firmly at the feet of modern
media - where all of the incentives are singularly aligned with increased "engagement" of their viewers.
Given that view point, I disagree with the premise that each side should put as much effort as possible into organizing their resistance and further arguing their points. Instead, I believe we need more people to listen carefully, with patience and empathy,
to the grievances of all sides in hopes of finding a middle ground that works for all.
I would venture to say that the majority of the US electorate would agree that the massive debt that US has run up is a significant problem, and would further agree that reduced scientific research funding is an appropriate (albeit small) step to address that
problem. As such, it would be hard to argue that reduced scientific research funding, by itself, is an assault on American democracy.
It can certainly be argued that the methods apparently being used to reduce funding are crude and not well prioritized, with an emphasis on haste rather than wisdom. Unfortunately, I fear that this will remain the case while the electorate is so heavily polarized
and we careen viciously to the left or right after each election.
So ... my suggestions is NOT to "put as much effort as possible into organising resistance to this coup" ... but rather to engage -individually- with those of differing viewpoints, with patience and empathy, in hopes of reaching a better shared vision and understanding.
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 08:25:25 +0000
Petter Kallioinen < 000001c5645d28b7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am writing from Stockholm following what I take to be the fall of American democracy. My advice is to not the resist the urgency of this situation and not hope for the best. What I would suggest is for everyone to minimize their ordinary work on a stable
level and put as much effort as possible into organising resistance to this coup. Everyone!
|