Public’s trust in science takes a hit when scientific journals take sides | Hacker News Reader

Public’s trust in science takes a hit when scientific journals take sides

theconversation.com

26 pointsrustoo8 comments

Justifiably so. For example, social science research proposals likely to have findings with an unwanted political impact have a 40-50% chance of being granted, compared to 95% for otherwise identical proposals without such impact: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001

And since approval committees are drawn from the same pool as researchers themselves, such politically unfavorable research is less likely to be proposed in the first place, so the 95% -> 50% drop, if anything, underestimates the bias.

In other words, overwhelmingly, they simply won't do research that they think could hurt their politics.

I would prefer if journals wouldn’t take sides. The same goes for newspapers. I never understood why they feel the need to endorse a candidate. I would feel much better if they focused on reporting of facts.

These days the newspaper bias is to preserve subscriptions.

If the New York Times praises Trump, they'll lose half their paying subscribers.

On Youtube, news channels have reported that if they're unbiased, their subscriber counts stop growing as "praising the wrong team" causes the other team to unsubscribe.

(Google Analytics shows that leftists are incredibly insular in what they will listen to, a true hive-mind. An example is that all the leftists I've talked to think that Trump is a racist, yet there's no actual quotes that demonstrate that.)

FYI, your comments seem to be shadowdead. They are dead when signed in, but not dead when not signed in.

Journals should take sides. they should take the sides of the science.

If and when the science changes, journals should change with them.

Its the fucking politicians that shouldn't be taking sides. Their job is to make decisions based on the best and highest quality information.

Accusations of journals taking sides are mostly about shifting the political goal posts and mostly should be slammed and shut down... hell I might even say they should be CANCELLED.

"Alternative facts" and the politicization of objective reality are IMO the most dangerous trends of the past four years. There's no way to begin to bridge our fractured political landscape when leaders devolve into conspiracy theories about scientists and apolitical entities rigging the system against them. I am glad that some publications had the guts to call a spade a spade.

What's really happening was the Trump admin promotes pseudoscience and fringe theories and flat out lies and completely ignore the advices from epidemiology experts (Fauci et al) and CDC and FDA and then appointed a neuroradiologist to advice the COVID-19 task force[1]. And then the medical / scientific communities got really fed up and decided to took a stand against it.

Science is science, it doesn't matter what your faith is, what party you affiliated. Whether the public has any faith on science has NO BEARING on science being closer to the truth.

[1]: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/23/scott-atlas-w...

It looks more like Fauci that has been trashing hyrdoxychloroquine studies to promote vaccines that don't yet exist to me.

I have seen studies showing good effects of HCQ as well as other studies showing little effect but potential problems when combined with other medications (dosage seems to be a factor, low dosage seems to be where the benefits lie). But because Trump suggested it, it was poo-pooed by Fauci and the media.

The Lancet study used to discredit Hydroxychloroquine needed to be retracted because the data was crap. Surely it deserves a second look.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092485792...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/lancet...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com