Saying that a conclusion made by a group of scientists was not objectively reached does not come anywhere near to denying that the scientific method is objective or being "anti-science." That article was not attacking the scientific method at all really (though it was applying a blatantly pro-government double standard to research funding and bias).
I don't get what that article is trying to say though. Researchers are advocating amoral scientism because they approve of GMO's and various corporate practices? If you're saying they're corrupt that's one thing, but that has nothing to do with scientism. I don't think many scientists are saying "Use GMO's, screw the ethical consequences." They're saying that GMO use and the practices associated with it have good consequences. Again, if you think that they're saying those things (or not saying other things) because they're corrupt, that's one thing, but it doesn't mean they're promoting some sort of amoral, scientistic ideology. Plus, I don't get why they're blaming Tyson. Why would he start making speeches about the consequences of corporate GMO use, something that has nothing to do with what he does?
It seems to me that the article is caught up in an ideal that scientists should only promote their research if they have first understood the social consequences of that research. That's like asking a software engineer who writes a social media app to first consider whether a user will employ it to inspire others to terrorism or that the code will be bought by a company who's not a good corporate citizen. Neither the software engineer nor the scientist should be expected to have the knowledge or take the time to determine the future of their work. In fact shouldn't any worker be free to have political views that might line up with a non-progressive corporation; the article seems to suggest not. I would suggest that one should then do away with a political matrix and view everything on a one-dimensional left-right axis.
The author also seems to suggest that some funding sources are more desirable than others, and that corporate funding of research is at the bottom of the list. Scientific research has a centuries old history of funding from corporate sources and other wealthy investors. If one carries the author's argument to an extreme then since the transistor was invented by scientists working for AT&T and are essential to make military drones, we should perhaps discard our tech devices.
Poll
