

Sad Sacks - cluiggi
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/sad_sacks/

======
cluiggi
Our take on the week: As a UK adviser is fired over politically unpalatable
advice, and an English teacher is suspended over an article about animal
sexuality, the fate of facts is on the line.

------
DanielBMarkham
_But to say that clinical descriptions of animal sex in the context of a
science article is inappropriate for 16-year-old honors students is to say the
real world is inappropriate._

But er, isn't the real world inappropriate for kids? Isn't the whole idea of
schooling is to gradually introduce kids to more and more of the real world?
And aren't such decisions always subjective in nature? So wouldn't politics
play a heavy role in what was or wasn't appropriate?

As for the political adviser giving advice contrary to his party -- once
again, aren't we all a bit confused here? The purpose of political appointees
in the science and medicine communities is to fulfill a _political_ role, not
a scientific one. Surely there are thousands of competent scientists able to
ask great questions and do substantive research. What's needed is a person to
be a bridge between the scientific and political worlds. And that person,
guess what, regardless of their credentials is a politician, not a scientist.

I understand the narrative is supposed to be "science under attack by (fill-
in-the-blank) idiots!" but I haven't seen it, and I'm not seeing it here. In
fact, in both of these cases people were making political statements -- about
the penalties of drug use or the appropriateness of training material -- and
using the "it's science!" simply as cover.

They might be selling, but I'm not buying.

More nerd flame-baiting.

