> I'm talking about expressly restricting the kinds of topics scientists are allowed to speak about with media, the conclusions of the research being altered b

> I'm talking about expressly restricting the kinds of topics scientists are allowed to speak about with media, the conclusions of the research being altered by political appointees, etc. I don't think the right is any worse than the left in this respect either. Looking at a small number of examples is not a good approach. This has been going on for decades, as I said, and it affects pretty much everything that we all think we know outside of perhaps hard science like physics or astronomy and mathematics. For one thing, every single one of the references you give is a partisan source; none of them are from neutral observers. Arguably there aren't any neutral observers, at least none that have a media channel through which to publish. So it's basically impossible to actually get an unbiased view from anyone. The only way to really form your own opinion would be to dig down to the original primary sources and evaluate the actions and decisions they describe on the merits, based on the information the actual people involved had at the time--which in many cases won't even be available to the public for decades, so it's useless as far as trying to decide about contemporary issues. But by doing such historical studies on the handling of past issues, one can at least uncover general patterns of how governments, media organizations, and other large bureaucracies and oligarchies handle such things, which can be useful in fueling a healthy skepticism about whatever they are saying about contemporary issues. Any such healthy skepticism will be equally directed at both left and right.