re: #36 freetoken

I agree with your comment. I’d like to mention another reason to be concerned about the current manufactured controversies in evolutionary and climate science: the personal lives of the scientific workers themselves. I’m not talking only about their personal safety; that’s rarely a concern, I think, these days. What concerns me is a subtle DISINCENTIVE for people to pursue these areas of research in the first place.

It’s similar to Charles’ recent post about Virginia requiring an invasive medical procedure for women. Anyone thinking about going into that specialty, whether as a doctor, or a nurse, or the technician who prepares the ultrasound device, may be inclined to go into a different field instead. E.g. a young person may choose to become a neurosurgery nurse instead of an ob/gyn nurse.

Similarly, a young person with an interest in evolution, may instead choose to specialize in (say) kidney research. A young person with an interest in climatology may instead go into marine biology.

I have a friend who is a well-respected researcher in marine biology. To be honest, I’m very happy that she is NOT in any “controversial” field.

These incentives / disincentives are obviously subtle, and debatable, but I’m afraid they may affect many thousands of young people who are choosing careers.

These days, tragically, we take it for granted that these questions come up when someone is considering if they want to work in the area of abortion, or birth-control counseling, or even (e.g.) a software engineer at Planned Parenthood. I hope we never see the day where we take the same thng for granted in regard to any young person who’s thinking about climate science, or evolutionary biology, as a career.