Promises to cut wasteful science funding draw protests
On Earth Day, people gathered in the rain around the Washington Monument, to “fight for planet earth.” They intended to turn it into “an homage for science.”
Their claim is that science is under attack:
“We are at a critical juncture. Science is under attack,” said Cara Santa Maria, a science communicator who is one of several emcees of the four-hour rally that kicked off at 10 a.m. “The very idea of evidence and logic and reason is being threatened by individuals and interests with the power to do real harm.”
The threat, they complain, is that science funding is under threat. Trump has threatened to cut federal spending for the EPA, a tyrannical organization that terrorizes people and steals their land. He has also proposed cutting the budget of the National Institute of Health.
Their argument is that, if the government steals less money from private citizens to give to government-funded scientists, that science will somehow suffer. Which science?
Trending: ‘Socialism for Thee but not for Me’
Global warming, for one.
WHO’S SERVICING WHOM?
If you believe science is neutral, and that science is vital to the survival of mankind, and that big government, run by bureaucrats who cannot be fired, is the pinnacle of mankind, then sure. Government should steal from the poor to give to the privileged scientists who research stuff that most people don’t think matters.
The article goes on:
“We’re not here for partisanship,” said Jacobs, who runs a science book club. “There are many Republican scientists. Science helps everyone.”
Three federal scientists, approached by a reporter, refused to give their names for fear of repercussions at work.
Why would they be afraid of the repercussions if this is such a great cause? Is it because they authorized wasteful spending for wasteful projects?
The waste piles up quickly. The National Institute of Health, whose budget Trump has proposed to cut, spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits. Another NIH study spent $371,026 to see “if mothers love dogs as much as they love their kids.”
“Science helps everyone?”
Wouldn’t you like to be the person paid lots of money to investigate the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits? Sounds like government-funded science only helps the self-interested scientists who are used to wasting their time and your money on dumb stuff.
Molly Jung, 29, a doctoral candidate at Johns Hopkins, echoed that view: “It’s time for scientists to get out of the ivory towers and get the message out
Ivory towers, indeed. To read the original article, click here.