
Science made astonishing progress and was hijacked by those with an axe to grind - pseudolus
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/26/science-advances-genetics-ai-attacks-politics
======
kristianc
> But this was also the decade in which science was commandeered by all kinds
> of people with political, social and economic axes to grind.

And here follows a list of people with political, social and economic axes to
grind. Wow, apparently, all of the examples I have just happened to be from
the political right and/or aligned to the evils of ‘Big Business’!

Come on, if you’re going to accuse people of having an axe to grind, don’t do
it in the service of having a political axe to grind.

~~~
defterGoose
Saying that the author has an axe to grind is another way of saying that their
idea is without merit. But you haven't actually done any work to analyze or
convince anyone of that.

~~~
twoflower9
Nationalism bad!

------
Hasknewbie
This reminds me of a 'news' organization that promoted the pseudo-scientific
book "The gendered brain" (which could be described as Peak Blank Slate
Fantasy), including a fawning soft-ball interview with its author where she
said that research into her claims would be unethical, because nothing says
good science like "just comply with what I said". That same media then went on
to put that book on their 'recommended reading of the year'.

That 'news' organization was, of course, The Guardian.

------
buboard
i don't like when "science" is being packaged in one single word. this kind of
articles serve to piggyback questionable science or even plain opinion on
certain very specific successes of very talented people. science is about
skepticism, and skepticism is not an "attack"; unconditional praise is what
erodes people's trust in it. people don't have a beef with scientists when
they re being honest

------
sorokod
It takes a willing audience for an idea to be effectively hijacked.

~~~
bdcravens
I think if 2016 and the events since have taught us anything, it's that there
are a lot of willing audiences we didn't realize existed (or had blissfully
lied to ourselves that they no longer existed)

~~~
jakeogh
Almost inevitably, these type of comments (about some recent date) are never
specific.

On the upside, everyone agrees; but it's pointless.

------
vfclists
Actually this is the kind of article that makes people suspicious of science,
when journalists make dubious accusations in support or against the status quo
or whatever.

Take vaccines example. Some researchers at the CDC withheld information about
the fact that young African American males who received some vaccines
developed autism at a higher rate. Did she mention that as one of the reasons
why some people are suspicious of vaccinations?

And then she links to on article about Andrew Wakefield which raises raises
questions about the soundness about the case against him, yet uses the article
as stick to beat him with.

Guardian hacks creating articles about nothing in particular.

~~~
stuartc842
cdc citation pls

~~~
junipertea
They are probably referring to this:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2015/08/06/a-co...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2015/08/06/a-congressman-
a-cdc-whisteblower-and-an-autism-tempest-in-a-trashcan/)

Note it’s disproven in the forbes article.

