What a Joe Biden presidency would mean for five key science issues
By: Alexandra Witze (nature)
The political analysis was not published by the New York Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal. This is from Nature.
Pay close attention to the portrayal of policies as 'good' and 'bad'. Pay close attention to the role of main stream scientists in formulating policy and political remedies.
These are main stream scientists discussing politics in a political manner.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Election Day in the United States is a little more than a month away, and scientists are watching the presidential race closely. President Donald Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, actions to downplay climate change and perpetuation of misinformation have horrified many scientists. "We face a national crisis unlike any we have witnessed," says a statement of concern about the state of democracy in the country, posted online 18 September by US scientists and signed by more than 3,600 supporters in response to Trump's leadership. On 2 October, Trump's announcement that he had tested positive for COVID-19, and subsequent hospitalization, was worldwide news. Three days later, he tweeted that he was doing well and would soon leave the hospital, telling the public "Don't be afraid of Covid."
Early polls show that Democratic challenger Joe Biden and his running mate, senator Kamala Harris of California, have a lead over the Republican ticket of Trump and vice-president Mike Pence. But what does Biden, a six-term senator from Delaware who served as vice-president under former president Barack Obama, stand for science-wise? Nature interviewed current advisers to Biden, advisers who served during Obama's presidency and policy analysts about actions the former vice-president might take in five key science areas if he's elected. (The Biden campaign did not respond to questions from Nature.)
Pandemic response
If Biden wins the election on 3 November, he will inherit not only a country in the throes of a pandemic that's destroyed lives and livelihoods — but also one in which public opinion is deeply divided over the true extent of the coronavirus outbreak and the measures taken to abate it. Despite public-health agencies counting more than 200,000 COVID-19 deaths in the country, some Trump supporters feel that the impact of the virus has been exaggerated in an effort to control the populace.
Biden would also inherit a haphazard pandemic response, researchers say. "The problem with our whole response is that we've been changing the response since day one," says Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association in Washington DC. This has led to testing failures, a lack of contact tracing, confusion and debate about wearing face masks and restrictions on gatherings — and ultimately to the highest death toll in the world, says Benjamin. Coming in with a strong response plan and the ability to adapt to an evolving situation will be crucial for steadying both the outbreak and the US economy, he adds.
Biden's pandemic plans — which his team has been preparing since March, say sources close to the campaign — promise to ramp up the country's test-and-trace programmes; address racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes; and rebuild pandemic-readiness programmes cut by the Trump administration.
Still, it will take time to bring the pandemic under control in the United States, says Kavita Patel, a physician who advises on health policy for Harris but is not currently advising the campaign. Biden's staff members, she says, "need to hit the ground running" in order to turn the US response around.
Months of Trump politicizing the pandemic will be hard to undo. The president has repeatedly said that wearing masks is unnecessary, despite public-health researchers' assurances that they are among the most effective non-pharmaceutical interventions for preventing viral spread. The Biden team will need to change the public-health messaging so that it supports the science without driving sceptics even further away, says Marta Wosiska, the deputy director of Duke University's Margolis Center for Health Policy in Durham, North Carolina. "We need to figure out a bipartisan push and identify who are the right messengers."
If Biden wins, his administration will have to tackle public mistrust of the federal agencies leading the US response to curtail the pandemic. The Trump administration has criticized and censored guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and has claimed, without evidence, that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is intentionally slowing vaccine testing to hurt his re-election chances. The Biden campaign has stated that his administration would direct the CDC to issue transparent, evidence-based guidance around the public-health risks of reopening restaurants, schools and public spaces. This could also go a long way towards restoring morale within the CDC and the FDA. "Agency scientists feel marginalized and that their voices aren't heard," Patel says. "You need someone who can reinvigorate them."
If elected, Biden has committed to supporting the World Health Organization (WHO), which Trump began to withdraw the United States from in July. As well as providing badly needed funds to the WHO to fight the coronavirus, polio and other diseases globally, reinstating the United States' commitment to the organization would pave the way for joining its international COVAX facility, which aims to accelerate the search for and manufacture of coronavirus vaccines.
Trump's vaccine initiative, Operation Warp Speed, includes funds for manufacturing, but Wosiska says that sufficient supplies aren't assured without international partnerships, including COVAX. "We haven't come to the table with other countries on vaccines, and that could change the course of how things play out," she says. But even with these partnerships, it will take time to adequately expand global manufacturing. Biden has committed to continue supporting coronavirus-vaccine research, and has pledged that an eventual vaccine will be priced fairly by the federal government.
In the longer term, researchers hope that a Biden administration will build up US public-health infrastructure to better prepare for future crises. "We absolutely know how to do this. We know what it looks like," says Benjamin. "We just have to have the leadership and the commitment of resources to do it."
Climate change
The coronavirus pandemic isn't the only divisive issue that Biden would face if elected — he would also be confronting climate change. Trump has moved to pull the United States out of the 2015 Paris climate treaty, rolled back a suite of regulations intended to reduce greenhouse-gas regulations and called global warming a hoax.
In contrast, Biden is now campaigning on the most aggressive climate platform ever advanced by a US presidential nominee in the general election. Addressing the demands of an increasingly vocal liberal base, his US$2-trillion plan calls for massive investments in clean-energy research and development and low-carbon infrastructure, such as public transit and energy-efficient buildings. It also calls for the United States to generate 100% clean electricity by 2035 and to produce "net-zero emissions" by 2050. The question facing Biden and his team, if they win in November, is how to make it happen.
Biden has said he will have the United States rejoin the Paris climate accord, making the country an active partner of the more than 190 nations that have committed to limiting global warming to 1.5-2 oC above pre-industrial levels. He would also appoint climate-friendly leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency and quickly move to restore — or even bolster — climate and environmental regulations rolled back under Trump over the past four years. It could take a few years to finalize those changes, but Biden could do so with existing authority under federal law.
The first big opportunity to advance climate legislation through Congress would probably come in the form of an economic stimulus plan to revive the US economy in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Campaigning under the slogan "Build back better", Biden and his fellow Democrats are likely to add investments in energy, climate, infrastructure and environmental justice to that plan. But whether the legislation makes it through depends on whether the Democrats take back the Senate and maintain their majority in the House of Representatives during the upcoming election.
"If they have the votes, the stimulus package could be the single-most important climate policy that this country has ever adopted," says David Victor, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego.
If the Democrats do win a majority in the Senate, they will still need to contend with a filibuster rule that requires 60 out of the chamber's 100 possible votes to pass major legislation. Democrats currently hold 45 seats in the Senate, and getting to 60 would be tough, so senior Democrats are considering getting rid of the rule if their party wins in November. According to Leah Stokes, a political scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who is volunteering for the Biden campaign: "We may get Democratic reform first, and use that to secure climate reform."
Research priorities
As well as tackling the pandemic and climate change, a President Biden would have the opportunity to develop other science priorities for his administration. This process typically includes tapping experts to coordinate science policy and establishing research focuses for the White House. (The actual job of doling out science funding is left to Congress.)
These advisers will be crucial because although Biden and Harris generally support science and its role in crafting public policy, neither has worked extensively on science issues. When he served in the Senate, Biden's focus was more on foreign affairs and the judiciary, and Harris has a background in criminal justice, including her former position as California's attorney general.
If Biden is elected, he should choose a science adviser as quickly as possible to start developing and implementing whatever research priorities do emerge, says Michael Lubell, a physicist and science-policy expert at the City College of New York. That position is currently held by meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier — who did not start until nearly two years into Trump's presidency.
Droegemeier and the Trump administration have focused on, among other things, initiatives in artificial intelligence and quantum science, areas that are seen as necessary to keep the United States competitive with China. If Biden were to win the presidency, those would probably continue to be areas of focus — in part because Congress is interested in them. As a former senator, Biden "will likely look to the Senate for ideas," says Jenny Luray, vice-president of strategy and communications for Research!America in Washington DC. Other potential focuses could include manufacturing technology, public health and health disparities, she says.
Biden's most obvious research interest has been in cancer science, particularly following the death of his 46-year-old son Beau in 2015 to brain cancer. As vice-president, Biden headed a government 'cancer moonshot' initiative that kicked off in 2016, the last year of Obama's presidency. It aimed to speed up the rate of progress against the disease by coordinating with companies and researchers to share data and results. The initiative later morphed into a non-profit group, which Biden suspended last year after deciding to run for president.
"Biden will want to make sure that any momentum from that effort that began in 2016 has not waned," says Jon Retzlaff, vice-president for science policy and government affairs at the American Association for Cancer Research. He also notes that Harris's mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a major influence on the vice-presidential candidate, was a leading breast-cancer researcher who died of cancer. The combination of Biden's and Harris's personal histories with the disease would probably mean that cancer and medical research will be a priority of the administration, he says.
But beyond medical research, Biden's broad science priorities remain a bit of a mystery. Despite having nearly five decades in public service, when it comes to research policy, "Biden fundamentally is a blank page," says Lubell. "He's certainly not anti-science; it's just not a priority."
Space exploration
Under Trump, NASA has pursued an ambitious strategy — named Artemis, after Apollo's twin sister — to put US astronauts on the Moon four years from now. Space exploration is one of the few areas where the Trump administration has put in significant effort to develop science policy.
How Biden, if elected, might alter the course set out by Trump is another unknown. As vice-president, Biden was not deeply involved in space-policy issues — unlike Pence, who has actively worked on Trump's space initiatives.
Trump views a space capsule that's part of NASA's Artemis programme, which aims to put astronauts on the Moon by 2024.Credit: Bill Ingalls/NASA/Planet Pix/ZUMA Wire
He did, however, express enthusiasm for space in May, when NASA sent two astronauts to the International Space Station on a privately built spacecraft for the first time. In response, Biden posted his congratulations on the website Medium — and noted that he was vice-president when this 'commercial crew' programme began in 2009.
NASA might not dramatically change its course under a President Biden, experts say. The Democrats' official platform says the party is "committed to continuing space exploration and discovery", including "NASA's work to return Americans to the Moon and go beyond to Mars".
But a Biden administration would have to decide what to do with NASA's human space-flight programme, which has been through whiplash-inducing changes in recent years. In 2010, Obama cancelled earlier plans to send astronauts to the Moon and told NASA to fly them to an asteroid. Trump, in turn, redirected NASA to focus on landing humans on the Moon by the end of 2024 — a highly ambitious deadline, widely assumed to fall at the end of a hypothetical second presidential term for Trump. If Biden were to become president, "I would expect that the 2024 date would disappear," says John Logsdon, former head of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University in Washington DC.
Beyond NASA, another question regards the fate of the National Space Council, which had been dormant since 1993 until Trump re-established it in 2017. The space council brings together representatives from various national agencies, including the military and NASA, to coordinate space policy across the government. In the past few years, it has worked to streamline regulations on the commercial use of space, to set national policy on space-traffic management and to establish a 'space force' as a new branch of the US military, charged with protecting the nation's interests in space. "I think the council has proven its worth," says Logsdon.
The National Space Council is headed by the vice-president, so Harris would take over from Pence if Biden is elected. Harris has not worked much on space issues, but Logsdon notes that in Congress she represents California, which is home to many large aerospace companies and several NASA centres. That might position her to work on issues involving the commercialization of space exploration.
International research collaborations
Scientists widely feel that Trump's isolationist stance has eroded the position of the United States as a global leader in major scientific collaborations and dimmed its allure as a destination for foreign students and researchers. Biden's foreign-policy and immigration plans could mend some frayed ties, but science-policy experts warn that the road to recovery will be longer than a single four-year presidential term.
Well before the 2016 election, Trump's nationalist campaign rhetoric, with vivid promises to build a wall along the US-Mexico border, spooked foreign scientists. And weeks after his presidential inauguration, a 'travel ban' executive order targeted at seven Muslim-majority countries stranded international students at airports, sparked protests and sent shock waves through the US research community. "When you don't have certainty over what the future immigration laws of the host country are going to be, you're going to think twice before deciding to uproot yourself and move to another country to pursue your PhD," says Ali Nouri, a molecular biologist and president of the Federation of American Scientists.
Biden has pledged to reverse the travel bans and to make it easier for foreign scientists and engineers who graduate with PhDs to permanently stay in the United States. He has also proposed to increase the number of visas available to highly skilled workers, including scientists. In contrast, the H-1B programme used by foreign workers, including scientists, has been a long-time Trump target. In June, Trump announced that there would be a pause in issuing new H-1B visas until the end of the year, contending that this would preserve US jobs for citizens in an economy endangered by the pandemic.
"What I would hope is that in the future, the United States would reverse some of these restrictions on talent flows," says Kei Koizumi, a former White House Office of Science and Technology Policy adviser under the Obama administration, who is not currently advising Biden.
Citing the threat of foreign interference in US research, Trump's administration has also upped scrutiny of scientists from China and of US scientists receiving foreign funding. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought to find, and in some cases arrest, researchers that it says were agents sent to steal scientific expertise and intellectual property on behalf of the Chinese government. In May, the United States took a new step: the issuance of rules to restrict researchers from universities associated with China's military from entering the country.
Amid this crackdown, US scientists are concerned about racial profiling against Chinese scientists, and some scientists in China are wary of travelling to the United States for conferences or partnering on projects with US scientists. US funding agencies have denied that the increased scrutiny has caused collaborations to suffer and insist that the US government's interest is in select cases of unethical or illegal behaviour.
A President Biden would probably continue the focus on research and national security. He has pledged to out-compete China in developing crucial emerging technologies, and the United States' effort to track China's interference in its research laboratories began while he was still vice-president, during Obama's second term. Regardless of the outcome in November, says Koizumi, this issue is set only to intensify, and it will be a challenge for either a Biden or a Trump administration to secure the country's intellectual property while not alienating Chinese scientists. "You have to balance openness versus security."
Tags
Who is online
134 visitors
Those in denial will claim that politics is influencing science. But political analysis published by scientific journals really does suggest that main stream scientists are attempting to influence politics.
As long as the science is honest, maybe this is a good thing? Of course that honesty part is a huge detail.
But consider the reverse (or what seems to me like the reverse). i.e. Scientists dispassionately doing research with no concern for the consequences of their work. Or, seeing ways that they could help or improve conditions for society or the environment and then choosing to ignore research that might be beneficial. Or making consequential findings (like people are changing the climate, or that smoking causes cancer) and then not making recommendations about how people should respond.
In short, I think we have criticized scientists for not being socially responsible, but we also criticize when they are trying to be socially responsible. It's a sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario.
But again, the research needs to be honest. Can't say it enough.
What is the role of science in society? Should scientific research inform society and abide by the choices made by society? Or should scientific research be directed toward governing society?
Should scientists inform the pubic about the risks of cancer? Or should scientists actively work to prohibit smoking? Informing the public is one thing. Advising the public is another thing. Actively directing societal choices is something different, entirely.
Objectively, climate change is a self correcting problem. Humans are changing the climate. A changing climate will kill humans. Fewer humans, less climate change. What is the justification for scientists actively directing societal choices that interfere with the natural order? Citing the moral implications of inaction doesn't seem to be very scientific.
Is the public criticizing the science, itself, or is the public criticizing scientists attempting to direct society? You know, questioning the authority of Dr. Anthony Fauci to make proclamations about what society is supposed to do isn't the same thing a questioning the science. Dr. Fauci is doing much more than informing the public. Dr. Fauci is telling the public what to do in certain terms. Dr. Fauci is using his status as a scientific expert to direct society. Is that an honest role for science?
Power corrupts. And the increasing power of science to direct society is corrupting science.
Well, I think science is a tool and society can use it for all sorts of things. But the people who do the science aren't just scientists. They are also citizens. They have homes and families. They vote. In short, they have issues they care about personally. They don't just exist to pursue academic challenges. Therefore, they have as much right to opine and lobby on the issues of the day as anyone.
However, they are in a unique position because of their professional credentials. Their opinions are often considered "expert opinions" and might reasonably carry more weight with policy makers than those of a lay person (assuming they are opining in their field of expertise, preferably about work they have done or are familiar with). There is obvious potential for abuse in this regard.
A famous example of abuse is Bill Nye "The Science Guy." Bill was a mechanical engineer at Boeing from the late 70s to early 80s. He doesn't have even have a PhD (at least not one he earned in the classroom). The Boeing job was the last non-entertainment job he had. He has spent far more of his career as an entertainer. He writes kids books about science.
Lab work? Field work? Theses? Academic papers? Not so much.
But he rants about climate change or Covid-19 as if he were trained in those fields and was doing climatology or infectious disease transmission for his profession. People listen to him because he's The Science Guy - and he knows it. I'm not trying to say he's saying stuff that is necessarily wrong, but he leans heavily on his reputation as The Science Guy to convince people he is speaking the truth and demanding people take action in response to his words. That's a kind of fraud, I think.
And by your very opening of this comment (which I agree with) he is not a scientist anymore. btw, back in the 70's you could be a mechanical engineer without a PhD. My dad helped design the LEM (Luna Module) landing stabilizers and was an electrical engineer with only a masters.
But back to Bill, he can have his opinions about those things, but they are no different than anyone else's other than he can explain how he got to them better than most.
I spent 15 years as a science teacher, but I am not a scientist. I did play a teacher of science though.
According to Google:
scientist /ˈsʌɪəntɪst/
noun
a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
There's no mention of "PhD".
IMNAAHO, a scientist is someone who knows the scientific method intimately, to the point that it comes naturally. A scientist is tbe opposite of a fervent. A scientist never knows anything. "To the best of my knowledge..."
Your questions are about the usage of science, not the role. You first asked if information derived by the execution of Science be used by society. You then asked if the results of science should be used by government in its role of governance.
How Science is used by others does not change the role of Science. The role of Science is to increase our understanding of our natural reality. The results of Science may be used for good or for bad purposes; they may also be misrepresented in support of agendas.
Of course, that's true. Scientists put on their socks one foot at a time just like anyone else lucky enough to have two socks and two feet. An opinion expressed by a scientist, as citizen, carries no more authoritative weight than any other opinion. The rejection of an opinion expressed by a citizen who happens to be a scientist is not a rejection of science.
An opinion of a citizen has no more authority to direct society than the opinion of other citizens. Citizen opinions are debated and considered on their merits in some form of democratic manner. And public acceptance or rejection of citizen opinion is, itself, a public opinion. Citizens may use notoriety, celebrity, or status to influence the public's opinion.
Should an opinion expressed by a scientist, as a scientist, carry more authoritative weight than an opinion expressed by a citizen? Doesn't that circumvent the, more or less, democratic process of forming public opinion? The public rejecting a citizen's opinion is simply a rejection of that opinion. Should we allow public rejection of the opinion of a scientist, claiming the authority of the corpus of science, be described as rejecting the science or is that still simply rejection of an opinion?
What is the role of science in society? Does science inform opinion? Or does science supersede opinion? Does science participate in the, more or less, democratic process of forming public opinion? Or does science exert a more undemocratic and directive authority that is not subject to public opinion?
Then society determines how to utilize that information. Dr. Fauci may express an opinion supported by that information but society rejecting Dr. Fauci's opinion is simply rejection of an opinion.
The coronavirus pandemic is progressing in the same manner as has every plague and pandemic throughout human history. Many opinions have been expressed throughout history about how to deal with pandemic. Many different approaches have been tried to exert control over pandemics. Yet, the progression of all pandemics throughout human history has been the same.
Dr. Fauci isn't providing society with new information. And Dr. Fauci's opinions aren't different than those opinions expressed in the past.
As we have seen, some of society can be quite stupid or irrational.
No, Dr. Fauci expresses what the evidence shows, as any scientist should. Society rejecting the evidence is a de facto rejection of science.
Actually, it's probably progressing faster, at least initially, given how quickly we can travel to different areas of the world nowadays.
People did not have a great understanding of pandemics in earlier times. We have the benefit of past experience and current knowledge in dealing with it.
Society seems to need a reminder.
They are attempting to influence policy because having examined the science it indicates a certain best direction if we want to see humanity flourish instead of go extinct. The fact that changing policy is political means they also have to attempt to educate politicians and the voting public about the potential dangers looming ahead. It's like the lookouts on the Titanic warning us of the iceberg ahead. Sadly, we have one political party that claims there is no such thing as 'icebergs' and even if there were they claim we're unsinkable. They claim telling the passengers that there are icebergs ahead would "panic" people so instead they choose to lie and misinform. Those anti-maskers, anti-vaccers, Covid denying, climate change denying morons need to be kicked out of office this coming November so we can get more rational people who listen to the science in the policy making positions.
... "if we want to see humanity flourish" is a moral argument based upon a very clear bias. The goal of that science isn't to pursue knowledge; the goal is to better mankind.
But that 'education' is narrowly biased according to a particular point of view. Scientists are attempting to direct policy according to a particular point of view.
Knowledge is how mankind gets better.
Indeed. I'm not sure how you can do one without the other.
Knowledge is amoral, apolitical, and apathetic. Knowledge is inanimate; lacking self awareness or self determination.
'Better' is a moral judgement influenced by the natural proclivities of humanity. The natural proclivities of humanity overlay biases onto moral judgements.
Knowledge only amplifies biased moral judgements influenced by the natural proclivities of humanity.
So? Your point?
"Better" can also be the tangible results we see from a gain in knowledge and its effects. Morality is a social function and determination.
How so?
The point is the conclusion of the logical construct.
Characterizing a tangible result as 'better' is a moral judgement.
A moral judgement is subjective application of a corpus of moral principles. A moral judgement involves a choice of how to apply moral principles. That choice is influenced by natural proclivities of humanity.
Moral judgements are always subjective. A moral judgement characterizing a corpus of moral principles as 'good' or 'bad' will always be subjective.
Knowledge, like moral principles, can only be applied subjectively. How to apply knowledge requires a choice that is influenced by natural proclivities of humanity.
Knowledge does not obviate the subjectivity of choices. Using knowledge to characterize the moral judgement of a choice as 'better' only amplifies biases influenced by natural human proclivities.
Newtonian cosmology was good, actually amazingly good at predicting the motion of cosmological objects.
Einstein's GToR is better at this.
There is nothing moral about this call. GToR is demonstrably more accurate than Newtonian methods.
Non sequitur.
Good grief man. I gave a perfect example of how a judgement call of ' better ' can be made without any moral factor. This was a direct rebuttal to your claim:
Tossing out ' non sequitur' only applies on a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement .
What are you talking about?
No, it's an objective analysis.
Yes, and?
Again, what's your point?
Knowledge is knowledge. I didn't bring up the concept of morality. You're trying to discuss something different than just plain knowledge.
Nerm, TiG, Gordy...
Define your terms.
The word "good" is too vague to be useful.
Okay, you got me.
Newtonian physics and ToGR have significantly contributed to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of warfare. The tangible results are well documented.
We need scientists attempting to influence policy because having examined the science it indicates a certain best direction if we want to see humanity flourish instead of go extinct. (@1.2)
We need more such knowledge because knowledge is how mankind gets better. (@1.2.3)
Newtonian physics and the ToGR are amoral, apolitical, and apathetic. Neither bit of knowledge cares dinkum doo about 'better' or 'worse'. Knowledge is like a stone. A stone can be used as a pestle to grind grain. Or a stone can be used to crack skulls like walnuts. The stone doesn't care.
Denying the importance of morality in how humanity chooses to use knowledge is, itself, a moral judgement.
Why? The definitions are not vague or ambiguous. And the discussion isn't about the definitions of 'good'.
Scientific knowledge has broadly increased the range of what humanity can do. Because humanity can do a thing does that mean humanity should do that thing?
It's David Hume's question: how do we get an ought from an is? From Wikipedia, Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.
Characterizing what can be done as 'good' or 'better' is a moral judgement to justify what ought be done.
The purview of science has been to observe and explain what 'is'. Scientific knowledge is amoral, apolitical, and apathetic. Scientific knowledge cannot tell humanity what 'ought' be done. The 'is' of scientific knowledge requires a moral judgement to become an 'ought'.
A corpus of moral principles to guide moral judgements has allowed science to maintain a high degree of objectivity. Other segments of society have been responsible for observing and explaining morality; that has not been the purview of science. Weakening or eliminating those segments of society responsible for morality threatens the objectivity of science. Scientists are filling the vacuum by making moral judgements so that the 'is' of science becomes an 'ought' for society.
A moral judgement applies moral principles, according to circumstance, to establish the 'ought' from an 'is'. All moral judgements are subjective; the need to address circumstance determines that. (The subjective need to address circumstance is addressed by David Hume's Problem of Induction, which is beyond the scope of the current discussion.)
The seeded article is a political analysis, by scientists, of what a Biden Presidency would mean for science. Note that sprinkled throughout the article are a mix of what can be done (research) and what should be done (policy). Main stream scientists are mixing the objective 'is' with the subjective 'ought'. The political analysis, published by Nature, provides an example that suggests institutional science is losing its objectivity.
You're at cross-purposes because you're using words differently.
I disagree. We are not debating the definition of 'good' or 'better'. We are debating a philosophical difference between objective 'good' and subjective 'good'.
Good is good; choose any definition. But is applying any definition of 'good' objective or subjective?
Is defining 'good', in any manner, within the purview of science?
Never mind....
Not a surprising response. Let's look at TiG's comment @1.2.10:
The idea that TiG conveys is that GToR cosmology is more objectively correct than Newtonian cosmology as determined by tangible results. By applying the terms 'good' and 'better', TiG is suggesting the definitions of 'good' and 'better' connote objectivity by association.
Pedantic semantics will not eradicate the subjective moral implications of the definitions of 'good' or 'better'. Using those terms in a scientific context ultimately taints the objectivity of science. Scientific knowledge may be objectively correct. But scientific knowledge being 'good' is not the same thing unless 'good' can only be objective.
I doubt that anyone truly cannot comprehend what I meant by 'good' and 'better'. Those terms do not require any special meaning in the context in which they were used. 'Good' means positive, beneficial ... the opposite of 'bad'. 'Better' connotes relative improvement. No need to to get specific about words when used in a common and non-nuanced fashion.
There are no moral implications in the words 'good' or 'better' in and of themselves. One must infuse morality through context. Further, there is no moral implication in the example I provided.
What you (and Bob) are arguing about seems pointless.
Bob highlighted the problem @1.2.17, "You're at cross-purposes because you're using words differently." That comment recognizes the imprecision and ambiguities of the terms 'good' and 'better'.
Perhaps it would be wise to review the definitions in their entirety.
"Never mind" is not an argument...
True. It is the termination of an argument. Good point.
Feel free. I am not going to participate in this silliness.
Pathetically, some (many?) actually believe this.