The War on Science

At the end of the day this is a war on the population. If you under educate people, they lack the tools to determine fake/sponsored science just as they can't differentiate between "fake news" and "real news". In the end it allows the political body to limit the discourse in their (or their financial backer's) favor.

Additionally, if people die younger they are less likely to diversify the topics important to voters. So control the populace through ignorance and through bad healthcare and poorly funded science, hope they die before they wise up. I don't see this as the aim of any single group, it's just the system we ended up with and unless there is an economic reason to change it, it won't. What's more scary is that economic gain can be had by going further in this direction. How rich could we get if we defunded all research and used the money to fund the military and just invade and plunder the rest of the world? It sounds unfathomable, but there are economic benefits, so the possibility that it could happen hinges directly on public opinion and the less you make self directed thought a priority, the more possible it is for those in power to do it. Knowledge is power, you take it away from people and they become your tools/votes/income source/cows. </rant>

The actual article title is "The Trump Administration’s War on Science", but that title is quite political. And I think that the HN aversion to political stuff is in general good thing, I think this kind of article is a good exception to that rule (and by extension, the Republican party war on science). But I realize that it can often end up in a flame war.

I'm not worried about the funding cuts. Those are incremental and can easily be reversed in later years. It isn't a good idea but it isn't the end of the world. I am much more worried about the cultural impact of a president denying basic science. The celeb or athlete who thinks the earth is flat or denies the moon landings is today a laughing stock. But here is an administration full of people who openly deny the basics, and think nothing of making facts out of thin air. Worse yet, they then convince themselves that the air is solid. That example will impact our culture for generations, or at least long after the budget decisions have been reversed.

Perhaps the funding in some areas is a bit too high if about 50% of the research can't even be reproduced in principle (and then less than half of what remains can be reproduced in practice)...

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/rigorous-replication-...

http://www.nature.com/news/irreproducible-biology-research-c...

A complimentary item not written should be also cover the "war of science" (against the population).

That is, the ways researchers, experts etc abuse their positions, get paid for favorable results, don't criticize problems that they benefit from (e.g. doctors complacent with the US health system's flaws), politicize their views and serve as lackeys of people in power (economists are very prone to that), or watering their science for media exposure and money (dietician promoting fads), etc.

Without that missing part the "war on science", the mistrust and the bogus theories (e.g. on vaccines being harmful) looks like some event without any tangible cause except people being more idiots than previous generations or learning less at school.