Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief
Advocating for science and facts is a biased political position now?
It shouldn't be, but how many examples do you need of "science" being manipulated to achieve some other goals? In theory this endeavor seems great. In practice, I'm extremely skeptical.
"whether we face a travel ban that restricts the free flow of scientific ideas, changes in education policy that diminish students' exposure to science, or budget cuts that restrict the availability of science for making policy decisions."
"We are actively partnering with and seeking advice from organizations and individuals with expertise in this area. We cannot ignore issues of racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination in the discussion and implementation of science. Nor can we ignore the ways in which science has been misused to harm marginalized communities."
You're advocating for facts/objectivity but you're trying to comingle it in areas that are inherently subjective. I think this path will only succeed in increasingly bringing issues from the scientific world and have them steered by political agendas. To me, this sounds like a bad idea. I like the underlying premise but cannot support this currently.