I don’t really understand why they decided to only provide right-wing talking points in their examples. If somebody wants to engage in this sort of performative pseudo-objectivity thing, they could at least throw in a couple reference to, like, embryonic stem cell research for example to as a head-fake.

I mean, I’m pretty gullible, even a slight appearance of good faith engagement and I’ll check it out. But this is just too one sided. I guess the title was enough to get my click. I should look into the substack business model, not sure what metrics this kind of article targets.

This was written for you

The author seems like an enlightened high IQ centrist.

>Science and medicine have come under attack, mainly from the left, by problematizing their epistemic foundations and achievements. In the past, attacks on science came principally from the right and this may happen again. I have a clear non-partisan standpoint and I am critical of both the right and the left. I am very much in line with the critics of SJI coming from the left (see: Neiman, 2023, forthcoming).

I see both side, but the real problem right now is the bureaucratic intricacies of academia coming from "the left".