A report on Biden-era energy officials who were coordinating their switch to academia while still in office helps us understand how scientific research and academia became so corrupted and biased.
The problem now with "The Science," by which I mean mainstream medical, climate, and other scientific research, is that it is closely tied to government grants and funding from big businesses, including Big Pharma. In other words, it is not objective and truth-seeking; it is heavily biased to come up with results that will affirm the preconceived notions and desires of the funders. That's why utter nonsense like climate alarmism and transgenderism remains popular in the medical and scientific communities. It's not about facts; it's about cash.
The Daily Caller provided a perfect example this week of what I mean:
David Turk, former DOE Deputy Secretary, and Shalanda Baker, former Director of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Justice and Equity, had a history of communications and arranging meetings with their current employers while still in the Biden administration, emails reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation show.
Their employers are Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs at its Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) and the University of Michigan’s School of Environment and Sustainability (SEAS). Coincidentally, The Daily Caller noted, the Biden Department of Energy (DOE) chose Columbia to enter into award negotiations for part of a multi-million-dollar artificial intelligence initiative, which ultimately resulted in $450,000 for the university.
Recommended: Prepared for War, Preserving Peace: Washington’s Advice and Modern Geopolitics
This is part of the give-and-take so many academic institutions have with the government now. The Stanford University-coordinated, election-rigging censorship network that included government officials during the 2020 and 2022 elections is another instance. The government gives grants to universities, the universities hire former government officials, and the academic researchers come up with the propaganda that allows the government to justify the unjustifiable in terms of policy-making. It's all one big, cozy, corrupt family.
Last year, I talked with a young woman who was getting her advanced degree and participating in medical research to test drugs at the same time. She expressed some ethical concerns about a recent study she had helped conduct because the pharma company that made the medication funded all the research, and she admitted there was an expectation they would, of course, give the company a more or less positive result on the medication in question. It was not that she believed the drugs were harmful based on what they found, but that she was afraid the end results handed to the company would have been nearly the same even if they had found severe issues.
This is another reason to break up monopolies and cut off federal involvement in education and scientific research. It inevitably leads to skewed conclusions and rigged results. Obviously, there are still honest scientists and academic researchers, but how many people, when offered a lucrative incentive to be dishonest so authorities can justify wind turbines, castrating kids, or rushed vaccines, will not compromise their morals for the money?
