You can’t remove politics from the people practicing science. Because they are people. But science it’s self is a process. It does not have, by definition, poli

You can’t remove politics from the people practicing science. Because they are people. But science it’s self is a process. It does not have, by definition, political inputs or outputs. > the question of which hypotheses are worth pursuing and which experiments should be done is political In a sense yes, but it also proves my point. The example I think of is this. For the sake of argument, imagine there is a left leaning scientist and a right leaning one and they study economic differences between ethnic groups. The left leaning scientist will have political biases, politics, etc, because he is human, and guided by these biases he makes the decision to hypothesise the economic differences are caused by systemic inequality. This is indeed an example of a political choice guiding the scientific process. I think that is perfectly fine. I don’t see this as “politics being in science” I see this as “politics being in humans practicing science”. Now, coming back to the right leaning scientist, he too has biases and politics and a sense of morality etc because he is human. Also guided by these things he hypothesises economic differences between ethnic groups are caused by innate biological differences. Just like the left scientist, I think this is fine. This is politics in the human practicing science, not politics in science directly. Where politics in science appears is, if the prevalent political system discourage research into innate biological differences between humans and interferes in the scientific process to prevent researcher into this topic. And that is what I have a problem with. And that is exactly what is being done through guidelines like this. > the results of this experiment make us uncomfortable I think we both know that is exactly how these rules will be used.