It's mildly amusing that ACSH is referred to as "industry-friendly." That term, which is applied to us by friend and foe alike, is based on a half-truth. And half-truths are the worst kind of "truths" because they're actually lies. Just ask the organic, dietary supplement, and alternative medicine industries if they think we're friendly.
The ingratitude expressed by the National Science Foundation over a huge funding increase for an important project is inexplicable.
What does Germany's election mean for science? Absolutely nothing, except that the preexisting anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, and anti-technology policies that were already prevalent under Mrs. Merkel will be reinforced. And the world won't notice.
Small donations from average people make up a considerable proportion of total donations. But then there are the large donors, individuals and groups who can donate $1 million or more. Scientists, colleges and universities, artists, nonprofits, and many others are obviously interested in knowing more about these types of donors.
The public is becoming increasingly skeptical of science. It's the natural outcome of a society that's hyper-partisan, and one that's told to be ever-more distrustful of expertise and authority. It's not surprising, therefore, that research perceived as even mildly controversial is immediately met with the charge "Follow the Money!"
The president's budget proposal for 2018 should raise some serious concerns. Cutting science funding, particularly that of the National Institutes of Health, is not aligned with his goal to "Make America Great Again."
To refresh our minds with some cleansing thoughts after a punishing campaign season, let's focus on something America does really well: Science. To that end, the following remains true: The United States leads the world in Nobel Prizes, and our nation spends more money on research and development than every other country on Earth.
The "follow the money" argument is an intellectually lazy fallacy. However, if you really do think that money will change our minds, then write us a check.
Joe Biden has good intentions, and it's easy to sympathize with the Vice President's personal pain and frustration. However, threatening and pointing fingers at the scientific community is often counterproductive. If Dick Cheney had similarly threatened to pull funding from scientists, how would the public and media have reacted?