User:Ed Poor/definitions of politicization of science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a proposal to create an article which compares and contrasts the various definitions of politicized science aka politicization of science. Apparently writers who volunteer their time at Wikipedia disagree over which definition should be used, or how the definition should be applied. I will collect definition from google searches.
Google: politicization of science
- Hit #1 - Wikipedia:
- occurs when government, business or interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which differ from the majority view, or influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted. Typically these findings have a bearing on public policy questions of interest to government, business or other interest groups.
- Hit #2 - Hoover Institution (Michael Gough (author)):
- manipulating science for political gain
- misapplication, overextension, or outright manipulation of the scientific record to advance particular policy agendas
- Hit #3 is a blog comment by Roger Pielke discussing the problem (see #6 below)
- Hit #4 - same book as #1
- Hit #5 - blog comment by Andrew Dessler,
- Misrepresenting the peer-reviewed literature ... includes cherry-picking, dueling experts, or any of the myriad other methods of pushing faulty science. [1]
- He notes that People talk about the "politicization" of science all the time, usually in the form of an accusation designed to paint an opponent as biased or corrupt.
- Misrepresenting the peer-reviewed literature ... includes cherry-picking, dueling experts, or any of the myriad other methods of pushing faulty science. [1]
- Hit #6 - Roger Pielke article, When Scientists Politicize Science:
- advocates selectively using and misusing “science” to advance their firmly held positions. [2]
- Hit #7 - The Skeptics Society e-newsletter:
- intrusion, government meddling, misuse of science
- For instance, when the National Cancer Institute’s web site was altered to suggest there was a link between abortion and breast cancer Marburger described the change as only a routine update. What actually troubled the UCS was that the findings of established science had been removed in favor of language that promoted the lonely crusade of Dr. Joel Brind. [3]
- tailoring science to fit politics (NY Times editorial) cited in [ibid] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This is a POV Fork of Politicization_of_science
From someone who is on Arbcomm probation for creating POV Forks Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Creation_of_POV_forks. It's utterly transparent what you're trying to do Ed: You failed to get your content into Politicization_of_science which redefined the term according to the archconservative Hoover Institute so now you want to redefine the term in another subarticle. No. And no to any further disruption too. Your proposed article is more appropriate for Conservapedia where you're an admin, make it there. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is a POV fork that has no use. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
