I cannot take him and his arguments about "science" seriously because 1. he is using the concept of scientifc progress, which many of use would agree always worthy of pursuing, under the guise of "Web 2.0" which you might guess is not my idea of science and 2. his background is Stanford Law School, a Wall Street trading desk, a hedge fund and then PayPal and Palantir. He has little credibility on this topic: science.
If he were focussed on preaching the merits of philanthropic donations to scientific causes, and he has some credibility on this, I would not be criticising his writings. But as we all know there is more to his agenda and these PR pieces. They always include references to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley. No harm in trying to pump up the market for web startups, as long as you're within the law, but when you start sugar-coating these pitches with talk of "scientific progress", then I take issue.
It's true he may warning of a general problem with a growing disregard for science. But why does he have to connect it to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley? Maybe because that is the only things he knows that is remotely reminiscient of science? Or is there some other reason? Because he is a venture capitalist in that sector? What is the purpose of Section III?
How does he know that science is being ignored? Is he working in a lab somewhere and short on funding for his research? No. He's a Silicon Valley venture capitalist investing in "Web 2.0". He would know if Silicon Valley is being ignored or could use a little more attention. Of that I am certain.