Skip to content

The Sanitizing of Science by the Science Establishment

February 6, 2012

If anyone still has delusions that “science” is impartial, after the
“global warming” scam was exposed, check this out.  It’s an article from
NewScientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21397-lets-give-science-a-bad-name-in-schools.html
[entire article below]

*The Reader’s Digest version*:

Sixty years ago science was co-opted by the totalitarians. This massive
shift occurred after WWII.  It was co-opted under the guise of “making
science less terrifying” to the masses.  It was for our own good.

All discussion, dissent, contrary opinion, etc. were eliminated in favor of
the public appearance of “consensus” surrounding “Brand Science”.  It is “*a
carefully crafted and unrepresentative distortion”*.  Since government
throws massive amounts of taxpayer money at science institutions, the
consensus is probably that which is in accordance with public policy.

The “world changing scientists are” “anti-authoritarian, risk taking,
rebels”.  “Senior figures” in such organizations as the Royal Society [a
Fellowship <http://royalsociety.org/about-us/fellowship/?from=welcome&gt; of
the world’s most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific
academy<http://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/?from=welcome&gt; in
continuous existence], and Wellcome Trust [Our vision is to achieve
extraordinary improvements in human and animal health. In pursuit of this,
we support the brightest minds in biomedical research and the medical
humanities]   have been carrying out a conspiracy with media, and no doubt
education, to control ” *access to scientists and endorsing only those who
would toe the line of Brand Science”.*

“For more than 60 years now, science has striven to be seen as trustworthy,
morally upright, objective and dispassionate…”For their PR campaign to
establish “consensus” for “*pressing problems such as climate change and
energy supply” *they are trying to figure out how to suck all the *aggressive
*brilliant children into their machine.  Leave the timid ones to the
opposition; they can be bullied into silence.

So, the reason “science”, “education”, and “media” appear to be
totalitarians is because they are, as exposed by Ben Stein in Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed.  They just didn’t tell you.

Oh yeah, what was happening 60 years ago in the world.  That would have
been about 1950.  So here’s history leading up to the “carefully crafted
and unrepresentative distortion” of science. Science is the new god.  He
who controls science controls the masses.  Remember, the enemy of these
people is Christianity.

*History*

In the 1930s, the Communist Party and associated organizations attracted
the support of a glittering array of novelists, screenwriters, critics, and
artists. Within the Communist Party, these individuals had found
comradeship, acceptance, and a sense of mission.

From its earliest days, the American Communist Party received substantial
funding from the Soviet government. In January 1920, the Communist
International (or Comintern) supplied the Communist journalist John Reed
with approximately $2 million dollars worth of gold, silver, and jewelry to
foster Communism in America.

Pro-Soviet Americans, many of them secret members of the Communist Party
working within such sensitive agencies as the State Department, the
Treasury Department, and the Office of Strategic Services (the forerunner
of the CIA), provided K.G.B. agents with information ranging from
well-informed political comments to purloined classified documents.
Recently declassified government files indicate that Alger Hiss was
involved in passing on government documents.

In February 1950, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy had charged that the
Department of State knowingly harbored Communists.

In 1950, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of 11 top leaders of the
Communist Party under the Smith Act. A Justice Department official, Judith
Coplon, was convicted of conspiracy with a Soviet representative at the
United Nations (later reversed on procedural grounds), and four
people–Harry Gold, David Greenglass, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg–were
arrested on charges of atomic espionage. Around the same time, a grand jury
issued indictments for the illegal transfer of hundreds of classified
documents from the State Department to the offices of a journal called *
Amerasia*.
In October 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the world’s first
artificial satellite.
*Sputnik led Congress to pass a series of massive federal aid-to-education
measures. Science became a priority in schools and universities.*

*Period:* 1950s

In August 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a *Time* magazine editor and a former
Communist, told the House Un-American Activities Committee that Alger Hiss,
a former State Department official and president of the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, supplied Soviet agents with classified U.S.
documents.

A federal grand jury indicted Hiss for perjury after Chambers produced a
microfilm he had kept hidden in a pumpkin on his Maryland farm. The
microfilm contained photographs of the documents Hiss allegedly passed to
Chambers. Hiss’s first trial ended in a hung jury, but in 1950, he was
found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. The Hiss case was
offered as proof that there had been Communists in high government
positions.

No one here but us “masses”,
N

*Let’s give science a bad name in schools*

13:05 27 January 2012 by *Michael
Brooks*<http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=Michael+Brooks&gt;

Today, the UK’s Royal Society announced its
intention<http://royalsociety.org/news/vision-launch/>to stimulate a
“world-class, high-performing education system for science
and mathematics”. If that’s really what it wants*, its members will have to
give up a 60-year pursuit of a squeaky-clean image for science and
scientists.*

One of the biggest problems is that, although the subject fascinates
elementary-school children, most lose that fascination between the ages of
10 and 14.

This is when adolescents are forming their sense of self. As young people
seek to turn themselves into adults, they experiment with risk-taking,
rebellion, deception, corner-cutting, questioning morality, coping with
failure and suppressing self-doubt. This has strong repercussions for their
response to science lessons.

*Behind the scenes*

Studies have repeatedly shown that teenagers lack interest in school
science. Louise
Archer<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/people/academic/archerl.aspx&gt;,
who researches the sociology of education at King’s College London, puts it
like this<http://tisme-scienceandmaths.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Archer-et-al-Science-Education-2010.pdf&gt;:
there is “a mismatch between popular representations of science… and the
aspirations, ideals and developing identities of young adolescents”.

The key phrase here is *”popular representations”. The science of popular
account is essentially a carefully crafted and unrepresentative
distortion;*as Nobel laureate Peter
Medawar<http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1960/medawar-bio.html>put
it, “the postures we choose to be seen in when the curtain goes up”.

Behind the curtain, scientists are surprisingly colourful. *The
world-changing ones* are, by definition, *anti-authoritarian, risk-taking
rebels*. The history of science is littered with instances of fighting,
disregard of authority, dogged determination in the face of scorn and even
that staple of teenage rebellion, wilful
intoxication<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128201.800-lab-brats-eight-great-scoundrels-of-science.html&gt;.
Such behaviour seems to be inseparable from the creative pursuit of a
breakthrough.

The problem is, school students only ever hear about the breakthrough
itself. *The crooked path to success has been whitewashed out of sight.
This is not an accident: it is the result of a long-running PR campaign
carried out by organisations such as the Royal Society – the creation of
Brand Science, if you will.*

*Bad rep*

*It started after the second world war, which made science look
terrifying.*The atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
the V2 rockets
that rained down on London, the experiments carried out in Nazi
concentration camps and Japanese prisoner-of-war camps – and *Allied
mustard gas experiments on their own soldiers *– enveloped science in a
cloud of fear. That was why the geneticist Jacob Bronowski wrote in a 1956
issue of *Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists*<http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/bronowski-jacob_responsibilities-of-the-scientist.html&gt;:
“People hate scientists. There is no use beating about the bush here.”

*Senior figures reacted by trying to put science in the best possible light
wherever it might be on display. That is why UK organisations such as the
Royal Society, the Royal Institution and the Wellcome Trust forged links
with the national broadcaster, the BBC, in the late 1940s, controlling
access to scientists and endorsing only those who would toe the line of
Brand Science.* Memos to the broadcaster, according to author Timothy
Boon<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706056/&gt;,
forcefully suggested dropping the “perils and dilemmas angle” in its
coverage of the subject, and concentrating on “the great solution wrought
by the introduction of the experimental method”.

Across the Atlantic, scientists were making similar public promises of the
benefits that they would bring. For more than 60 years now, science has
striven to be seen as trustworthy, morally upright, objective and
dispassionate, and providing a well-defined path from hypothesis to
experiment to deduction that will reliably deliver advances and
improvements.

*Introverts only*

The unfortunate spin-off of this PR effort is that it made the subject look
dull, inhuman and robotic. Perhaps that’s why, when asked to pick out the
scientists from a gallery of photographs, children chose the ones that
weren’t smiling – although in reality, all the photos were of scientists.
Scientists are not perceived as smiley or fun, and the general population
certainly does not think of them as creative or dynamic. That might explain
why, as a Dutch study
revealed<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827833.100-should-schoolchildren-be-typecast-into-science.html>in
2008, highly socialised, extrovert students tend to drop science
subjects as soon as they can, orienting themselves instead towards more
“human” areas of work, such as law, politics and economics.

Reintroducing into school curricula the humanity of science – with all its
flaws, its tales of outrageous behaviour and even more outrageous
characters – would give teens the opportunity to see scientists as role
models. *With pressing problems such as climate change and energy supply to
confront, we must do whatever we can to capture the bold, adventurous,
risk-taking minds of tomorrow, rather than settling for the timid ones –
even if that means tarnishing the carefully nurtured public image of Brand
Science.*

*
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21397-lets-give-science-a-bad-name-in-schools.html
*

*Read more:* “Lab brats: Eight great scoundrels of
science<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128201.800-lab-brats-eight-great-scoundrels-of-science.html&gt;

*Michael Brooks** is a consultant for New Scientist and the author of Free
Radicals: The secret anarchy of
science<http://www.freeradicalsbook.com/index.html&gt;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let’s give science a bad name in schools

13:05 27 January 2012 by Michael Brooks
For similar stories, visit the Comment and Analysis and Teenagers Topic Guides

Today, the UK’s Royal Society announced its intention to stimulate a “world-class, high-performing education system for science and mathematics”. If that’s really what it wants, its members will have to give up a 60-year pursuit of a squeaky-clean image for science and scientists.

One of the biggest problems is that, although the subject fascinates elementary-school children, most lose that fascination between the ages of 10 and 14.

This is when adolescents are forming their sense of self. As young people seek to turn themselves into adults, they experiment with risk-taking, rebellion, deception, corner-cutting, questioning morality, coping with failure and suppressing self-doubt. This has strong repercussions for their response to science lessons.
Behind the scenes

Studies have repeatedly shown that teenagers lack interest in school science. Louise Archer, who researches the sociology of education at King’s College London, puts it like this: there is “a mismatch between popular representations of science… and the aspirations, ideals and developing identities of young adolescents”.

The key phrase here is “popular representations”. The science of popular account is essentially a carefully crafted and unrepresentative distortion; as Nobel laureate Peter Medawar put it, “the postures we choose to be seen in when the curtain goes up”.

Behind the curtain, scientists are surprisingly colourful. The world-changing ones are, by definition, anti-authoritarian, risk-taking rebels. The history of science is littered with instances of fighting, disregard of authority, dogged determination in the face of scorn and even that staple of teenage rebellion, willful intoxication. Such behavior seems to be inseparable from the creative pursuit of a breakthrough.

The problem is, school students only ever hear about the breakthrough itself. The crooked path to success has been whitewashed out of sight. This is not an accident: it is the result of a long-running PR campaign carried out by organizations such as the Royal Society – the creation of Brand Science, if you will.
Bad rep

It started after the second world war, which made science look terrifying. The atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the V2 rockets that rained down on London, the experiments carried out in Nazi concentration camps and Japanese prisoner-of-war camps – and Allied mustard gas experiments on their own soldiers – enveloped science in a cloud of fear. That was why the geneticist Jacob Bronowski wrote in a 1956 issue of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “People hate scientists. There is no use beating about the bush here.”

Senior figures reacted by trying to put science in the best possible light wherever it might be on display. That is why UK organizations such as the Royal Society, the Royal Institution and the Wellcome Trust forged links with the national broadcaster, the BBC, in the late 1940s, controlling access to scientists and endorsing only those who would toe the line of Brand Science. Memos to the broadcaster, according to author Timothy Boon, forcefully suggested dropping the “perils and dilemmas angle” in its coverage of the subject, and concentrating on “the great solution wrought by the introduction of the experimental method”.

Across the Atlantic, scientists were making similar public promises of the benefits that they would bring. For more than 60 years now, science has striven to be seen as trustworthy, morally upright, objective and dispassionate, and providing a well-defined path from hypothesis to experiment to deduction that will reliably deliver advances and improvements.
Introverts only

The unfortunate spin-off of this PR effort is that it made the subject look dull, inhuman and robotic. Perhaps that’s why, when asked to pick out the scientists from a gallery of photographs, children chose the ones that weren’t smiling – although in reality, all the photos were of scientists. Scientists are not perceived as smiley or fun, and the general population certainly does not think of them as creative or dynamic. That might explain why, as a Dutch study revealed in 2008, highly socialized, extrovert students tend to drop science subjects as soon as they can, orienting themselves instead towards more “human” areas of work, such as law, politics and economics.

Reintroducing into school curricula the humanity of science – with all its flaws, its tales of outrageous behavior and even more outrageous characters – would give teens the opportunity to see scientists as role models. With pressing problems such as climate change and energy supply to confront, we must do whatever we can to capture the bold, adventurous, risk-taking minds of tomorrow, rather than settling for the timid ones – even if that means tarnishing the carefully nurtured public image of Brand Science.

Read more: “Lab brats: Eight great scoundrels of science”

Michael Brooks is a consultant for New Scientist and the author of Free Radicals: The secret anarchy of science
*

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: