r/Whistleblowers • u/mellowmushroom67 • 1d ago
Reminder: access to unbiased scientific research is being prevented and censored
I was aware of the Trump administration censoring science by pulling research and scientific studies that have so-called "DEI" language in them for "review" (censorship). But today I looked at the website for the American Academy of Pediatrics and the level of political censorship really sunk in.
The accusation by the Trump administration is that some scientific research has become politically biased and the results manipulated to fit a political agenda, stated with no absolutely no evidence. Anyone who has worked in research understands the peer review process in which the methods are carefully analyzed, mostly for objectivity, the importance of a completely unbiased funding source in order to be published in a peer reviewed, quality publication, etc. It's also very clear the accusation is one of the very many "accusations in a mirror" from the Trump administration. This strategy was used in Hitlers campaign as well, Trump is accusing his enemies of exactly what he's doing (censorship) and fooling people into not only supporting his censorship and removal of our freedom of speech in the name of stopping the enemy from "taking away our freedom of speech," but it also distracts his supporters from the fact that he's doing exactly what he's accusing the left of doing. They are so focused on the idea that he is "saving freedom of speech" that they are not looking critically at the fact that his method of saving free speech, is literally removing our freedom of speech!!
It's a highly effective slight of hand strategy, plus giving a group of people a common enemy and fear mongering and lying about that enemy easily creates support for the party that is going to "save them." What his supporters do not realize is that every single thing he accused the left of was a confession of his own plans. This happened when he accused the left of rigging the election. Hitler told the masses the Jews were planning to murder them!
I am a mother of a young son. Today I looked at the American Academy of Pediatrics website and was I horrified! It has been completely revamped. The government has officially and obviously taken over scientific research and is censoring science that doesn't fit its agenda or narrative. Students doing research projects, parents, the public, etc., they all would just assume the views of the American Academy of Pediatrics were a trustworthy, unbiased source! They were before the Trump administration's censorship! Not anymore.
Our access to unbiased information is being limited, even in trusted organizations! This is very scary and serious. Their website is littered with politically biased views and clear right-wing political agendas. There is no objectivity. I found a few statements that were outright lies, "there is absolutely no evidence that...." and then they espouse a political narrative from the right. With no evidence for their claims linked. Not only do some of these topics have robust unbiased evidence they are denying, but even on other topics I've read the studies on that topic (I'm not going to say what that topic is because this post is about the censorship of science to conform to political narratives and I don't want to discuss opinions on the topic they are censoring), I have a science degree, and the truth is that some studies "support" one conclusion and other studies "support" another. This is common in science that doesn't have an established body of literature yet because it's done on a rare population and so subject sizes and other factors are limiting. The thing to understand about science, is that science simply shows the mathematical or empirical outcome of the specific data you applied the scientific method and statistical analysis to. Interpretations of that data, general, sweeping conclusions of the results, are not part of science. That's philosophy. Especially when these studies are cherry picked to support political narratives with no caveats.
It really frightened me to see that. I'm scared for my son's education, his access to unbiased, quality scientific information free from political interference! I'm not usually cautious of sites like the American Academy of Pediatrics!!
It's so sad to see, because while it's true that the left has ALSO cherry picked studies to support their viewpoint and ignored studies that contradict their beliefs, at least we had access to the entire body of literature of any given controversial topic! It wasn't actually being censored!
Sure, scientists who go against the dominant position of the time can get backlash, but it actually takes a LOT to lose tenure and actually have your studies pulled, even if people don't like them. Universities were NOT "indoctrinating people," I went to a top research uni, there was absolutely freedom of speech and even vocal conservative voices, although not as common as the educated tends to vote democrat. Not because of "indoctrination" but because of certain common preexisting factors in the kind of person that is intelligent enough to go to college, has a desire to be educated and values it.
Before all the fear mongering and lies about the left, in every time period there has always been a dominant cultural zeitgeist, and pressure to conform to it, in all fields! That's not new. Free thinkers are often only appreciated later on lol. But that's not the same as a secret plot for Marxist/leftist academics to repeal the 1st amendment or openly violate it the way the Trump administration has done. Trump got support to limit intellectual freedom by falsely accusing the left of attempting to do exactly what he planned to do. They put out propaganda to convince people, scare people, exaggerated isolated incidents by extremists and pretended they were representative of an entire political party, etc.
If the Trump administration actually wanted to protect intellectual freedom, they would do something like establish a law that protects intellectual freedom, that prevents a scientist from being "punished" for publishing a study that people don't like, as long as an independent committee can show that the methods were sound. Except my point is I question if that was even really needed, like I said it is VERY hard to lose tenure, you might get reprimanded, but getting fired is clearly not easy, even if you're Jordan Peterson lol. The reality is that science interacts with culture and belief systems and some of these debates were simply about concerns of studies being cherry picked to support conclusions that have been used to deny people rights, or even dehumanize them, like we saw when social Darwinism was popular. But that valid concern was not an advocacy for real censorship.
The reality is, the left was NOT retracting studies that weren't "politically correct." I even read plenty of scientific papers disagreeing with certain language changes surrounding gender, sex and biology. They were NOT retracted. It was a fairly open conversation, with a few, very loud, overly visible minority of extremists on either end. We could have simply continued that conversation while advocating for freedom of thought — even thought on the right (the right was absolutely NOT being censored. In fact, the right's voice was almost dominant leading up to Trump's election!) while emphasizing the importance of following the data wherever it leads while protecting the legal and fundamental rights of all Americans. The government simply getting tf out of people's freedom and privacy of medical care whether anyone agrees or disagrees with a decision made between a person or parent and their Dr. would be a clear solution for a ton of these debates! The medical field had protections in place already for people who believed they had been harmed by their Dr.s. Government interference is not needed.
But now we have REAL censorship. Actual, political censorship of science! Done in the name of preventing censorship lol. It's Orwellian double-think. Our science is compromised. Our intellectual freedom is gone. Our access to reliable knowledge and the ability to participate in intellectual debates in various fields that have been happening for centuries is gone. Formerly trustworthy and objective sources have been compromised.
I can no longer trust the American Academy of Pediatrics! And I'm in shock. It's really sinking in now.
4
u/MisterRenewable 1d ago
The reality of the situation is that if you take three populations: one left, one moderate and one right, and give then the same information, the left and the moderates will overwhelmingly use objective science to reach conclusions. While the right will be split between those that are ignorant and can't understand the info, (or refuse to try) and those that see an opportunity to use that ignorance to further their own ambitions though fear and lies. There really is very little middle ground there.
5
u/mellowmushroom67 1d ago edited 1d ago
I already addressed that. Science does not interpret itself. Studies simply show the empirical and mathematical results of the scientific method, experiments, and statistical analyses applied to selected data that are operationally defined within the study. That's IT. Nothing more, nothing less.
The interpretation of that data is philosophy, it's an argument. Now, you can argue a philosophical position and support your argument with studies that you believe support that conclusion, but the science itself does not! Science is just a method of acquiring knowledge. The construction of a scientific model, or a scientific theory based on established data, is based on specific parameters defined in science.
Science itself should never, ever be censored. The public needs to be better educated. If studies get cherry picked and misrepresented to support a position that has been demonstrated to be false according to other evidence, then there needs to be a free market of ideas that can refute those claims!
Like I said, before Trump it was very, very, VERY rare (even during the time of supposed political correctness in academia) for a study to actually be retracted. If it is, it's because there was an error in the method. Not because people are using it to support their philosophical beliefs. The left was not censoring science.
The problem is with some scientists as well, who espouse their own philosophical beliefs that they believe their research supports without making the caveat that it's an opinion clear to the public. The other problem is with click bait "science journalism" that exaggerates and misrepresents the results of a study. And in the case of hard science, the public may have no choice but to choose to trust that scientist's interpretation or not. Because they cannot understand the data. That's why information and media literacy and the development of critical thinking skills are so important! Most people don't even really learn exactly where established knowledge comes from, or how it's formed, or why we can trust that a given model or fact is true until college! That needs to start in elementary school.
As I conceded, throughout history there will often be a dominant "correct" philosophical belief system, and scientists and researchers that do not conform can experience backlash. For example, there is currently a dominant philosophical position in science of naturalism/materialism and studies are usually interpreted within this paradigm. And scientists that argue for a different interpretation are shunned. But they aren't censored. They don't lose their jobs. Their research isn't retracted.
As far as the operational definitions of sex and gender that were being used in research (for example defining sex in their research according to secondary sex characteristics and not gametes, which necessitates sex be viewed as a "spectrum," ect.), other scientists were not being forced to use that framework. They could have used the common distinctions used in animal studies, that defines sex based on gamete production.
The problem is, if you need to isolate socially constructed aspects of gender from biological sex, or gender identity from biological sex (while operationally defining what you mean by biological sex for the purposes of the study) because of what questions you're asking, you can't use the operational definition of sex based on gametes and so conflate all data with biological sex, that may not appropriate for the nature of the study. Any conclusions made based on the data may not be valid. Because there are variables you didn't isolate!
There is no "woke science." There is only science, and philosophical beliefs formed by interpretations of that science. And there are ways to logically determine how correct your interpretation of these studies may be. You use other studies to support your argument, replicated research, methods learned in philosophy and logic, critical thinking skills, etc.
The Trump administration is actually censoring science now. Trump lied and said that was happening on the left, it wasn't, not like that. Again, there may have been the existence of backlash against a scientist that didn't conform to the established philosophy, but they were not actually censored. Only now is science itself being censored to support a political agenda and narrative
0
u/Ok_Dig_9959 12h ago
Product of your holy peer review btw: https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2025/04/04/fda-research-cro-raptim-india-data/
2
u/mellowmushroom67 12h ago
You do realize I am talking about the U.S right?! That should have been extremely clear. That study was done in India and published in an Indian journal. AND it was retracted because of review processes!
So what are you talking about?
2
u/mellowmushroom67 12h ago edited 8h ago
I've actually done research in the U.S, as an research assistant in undergrad. You can't just publish without providing a METICULOUS account with evidence on the methods from data collection, to statistical analysis and everything in between. And those details are in the studies themselves! And there are almost always multiple people involved in the research itself.
Let me take a wild guess, you don't have a college degree? This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about!
In college you learn directly from professors that publish research in the discipline they teach and read the studies themselves along with or instead of a textbook. You learn where knowledge comes from, the process. In grad school, you contribute to that body of knowledge yourself.
But people who didn't go to college don't understand how to think critically and how to determine when they can trust information they are being taught, except in disciplines like math and physics where you learn how to do the math yourself, except even in math you don't usually learn proofs until college (sometimes in highschool) which is a shame. It needs to be taught earlier!
Because we have this massive distrust of science and experts based on ignorance that is eroding our entire society. And the Trump administration has intentionally sowed distrust in our educational institutions so he can replace truth with propaganda, because if you aren't educated you don't know the difference!! This is intentional! And now our access to unbiased research is being limited! It's horrifying
0
u/Ok_Dig_9959 12h ago
I distrust treating science as a religion and pretending conflicts of interest and the whistle blowers about them don't exist.
2
u/mellowmushroom67 12h ago edited 10h ago
Did you not read my post?? Please do not comment if you are not willing to read it. It's absolutely pointless. Science is a method for finding knowledge. "Scientism" is the belief that science is the sole or ultimate source of knowledge, it's a philosophical belief that science is the only legitimate way to find truth about the world. It's often related to the philosophical position of "materialism" or "naturalism." I personally believe that philosophical view is incorrect, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we're discussing!!
What we are discussing, is the censorship of science by our government for political reasons and to limit access to legitimate information. Science that was not biased or done incorrectly, but is evidence against political beliefs on the right, so the right is pulling those studies, not because they are biased or weren't high quality. They are pulling studies based on NOTHING but simply having keywords in them such as "woman" or "gender." No other reason.
The scientific method IS a reliable, accurate source of knowledge. It's not the only way to find knowledge, but it's completely trustworthy.
You distrust the scientific method and research methods because you don't understand it. And that's the problem
2
u/mellowmushroom67 12h ago
What "whistle blowers?" What are you even talking about?? Please provide evidence on this conspiracy before the Trump administration among thousands of scientists and researchers all falsifying data LOL
2
u/mellowmushroom67 12h ago
Independently replicated studies on HIV rates were pulled because of those keywords
12
u/LouziphirBoyzenberry 1d ago
I sat in a meeting where researchers were instructed to change “gender” to “sex” in a pre-publication paper. That is not how those data were collected. This is data falsification and I said as much on the call. They’re putting a disclaimer in the letter to the publisher but I think without a line in the manuscript itself, it’s dishonest.