Culture Intelligent Design Science

Asked by science watchdog: Why is Lancet — famed medical journal — into anti-science advocacy?

Spread the love

Sure, “anti-science” is a loaded term. So often, it just means inconvenient science or “unacceptable views” or revelations of ties that should definitely be investigated. Or whatever.

In some cases, it can mean a preference for Wokeness over facts. We think that’s what American Council on Science and Health is referring to here:

As we’ll see in part two, the Lancet has argued “that medicine has a great deal to learn from [Karl] Marx,” endorsed the use of blatantly unscientific language—calling women “bodies with vaginas”—to assuage the concerns of social justice activists and, most significantly, called for a “Great Food Transformation.”

The journal has championed its EATLancet program as the means to achieve this transformation, which heavily overlaps with the EU’s Farm-to-Fork campaign in calling for severe restrictions on animal agriculture, pesticide use, and mandatory support for agroecology, the latest buzzword used to describe organic farming.

This advocacy appears to be part of an even larger effort to construct a new sociopolitical framework to “avoid the catastrophic consequences of the exploitation of earth’s resources due to capitalism.” We’ll examine the consequences of these lobbying efforts in detail next time. What’s abundantly clear already, however, is that The Lancet long ago left the realm of science.

Cameron English, “Mainstream Misinformation: The Lancet’s Long History Of Anti-Science Advocacy” at American Council on Science and Health (March 7, 2022)

Well, folks, they can have Wokeness or facts. Publication patterns will indicate the choice.

That second part from American Council should be interesting.

Note: It would be good if a group started assigning a Wokeness quotient to rubbish in science journals.

4 Replies to “Asked by science watchdog: Why is Lancet — famed medical journal — into anti-science advocacy?

  1. 1
    Scamp says:

    I have recently been reading Terry Pratchett quotes. I find this one appropriate.

    Science is not about building a body of known “facts”. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good.
    — Terry Pratchett

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check

    Obviously science as practiced in nearly university in the world does not do this but ID does. That is why I consider ID as Science+.

    ID cannot afford to be wrong about anything scientific. But the common image of ID is that they are a bunch of bumpkins especially about science.

    Again, using one of my favorite words, ironical.

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    “Avoiding the catastrophic consquences” means “Kill all Untermenschen.”

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    The ACSH seems to be viewed as a pro-industry advocacy group.

    Reducing animal agriculture and pesticide use seem like unexceptionable goals as long as they don’t limit food production which would raise prices and hit the poorest hardest.

    If organic farming methods can produce the same yield per acre as inorganic methods then there would seem to be no objection. If not, then the cost limitation applies.

Leave a Reply