Dear Reader,
For months, I have read the editorials in the well known, highly respected and widely read international journal SCIENCE - the voice of the very prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) - written by Editor-in-Chief , H Holden Thorp, and fumed. Although tempted, I never bothered writing rebuttals because long ago I learned not to engage in futile behaviors. I learned, through experience, which publications may and which may” not publish contrary views. For example, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and SCIENCE, on at least two occasions, years apart, refused to publish my brief views on TB that differed from their narrative. My comments were based on my insights gleaned from my studies on the sociology and pathophysiology of TB, some of my studies dealt directly with my published research on the tubercle bacillus. In contrast, the JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY and the JOURNAL OF THE UNDERSEA AND HYPERBARIC MEDICAL SOCIETY each published a lengthy and contentious letter of mine expressing my negative views on cooperating with the Russians because of their inhumane treatment of Soviet Jewry. There were/are newspapers that rarely, if ever publish views contrary to their narratives. The willingness to publish contrary views was what I liked about FREE INQUIRY before the editorial staff seemed to have adopted the cancel culture/“woke” ideology and put me on a six month suspension.
Why did Thorp’s editorials elicit such intense emotions from me? Because he was too one-sided and gave his potential and extensive reading audience a distorted view of the sociopolitical aspects of science from the point of view of the modern “progressive” intolerant culture. And, above all, it reflected irrational hate.
All too often scientists forget that science is more than just an intellectual endeavor of learning what the vast world is composed of, their properties and interactions but it also involves the products of such interactions such as the abiogenic creation (chemical evolution) of life and the evolution of living organisms resulting therefrom, their interdependencies, the impact such evolutionary developments have on the Earth’s micro and macro ecological niches. Also, the knowledge of these chemical, physical and biological phenomena would have sociopolitical ramifications on the growth and development of societies - especially as higher intelligence evolved - expanded and became more complex. Further, as these societies evolved, people asked questions about the nature of the world and developed intellectual and physical methods for studying the physical, chemical and biological world and their myriad interrelationships. This intellectual activity was called science.
Thorp, in his editorial of the Oct. 1, 2021 issue of SCIENCE (vol 374) railed against the inexcusable way science is being communicated to the greater non-science world. Thorp concluded that social media is responsible because he was puzzled “how social media has been skillfully exploited by anti science forces.” To buttress his argument, Thorp Refers to a book, “An Ugly Truth,” whose authors, Cecelia Kang and Sheera Frenkel, concluded - as Thorp expressed it: “that the world’s largest social network, Facebook, fills its coffers by exploiting the spread of misinformation…”
For decades, long before social media came into existence, I, like many other socially aware scientists, was maddened by the way science was being sold to the general public. The Wow! Holy cow! Gee wiz! Look what these guys have done now really bothered me. The media did not really portray accurately what constitutes the activit(y)(ies) of science. There was a significant confusion between science and technology. Yet there were some great books that did bring out the excitement and joy of science as well as its application - I am thinking of Paul de Kruif’s masterpiece, “Microbe Hunters.” Most newspaper and magazine Editors we’re ignorant of science and really did not know how to portray the essence of science. They did not evince any real interest in educating the public. There were a few newspapers that were excellent at science reporting.
The rise of the internet and social media changed all that. At first everyone had essentially unrestricted public voices. All sorts of kooks could and did promote their perverted ideas on almost an endless number of subjects without being silenced by responsible editors. Anti-science and haters such as racists and Holocaust deniers had a field day. They had access to a free, world-wide megaphone - which they used, and, unfortunately, there are numerous people who are easily swayed by ignorance-gullibility and hate.
Please permit me a brief background interlude.
A seismic change in society occurred. There was a sociopolitical revolution presumably inspired by the quest of what was called, euphemistically, social justice. The ensuing mayhem and chaos that occurred in cities throughout the US were justified by a relatively new philosophy called cancel culture, and included a concept championed by the NY ( T)(Sl)imes - Critical Race Theory to which it added the 1619 Project. The entire culture, called the “WOKE” society, was adopted by the political Left - the so-called Progressives. These progressives constitute the driving force of the modern Democratic Party. The Democrats adopted the totalitarian ideology of socialism as well as endorsing the destruction of public and private property including the defacing, tearing down and removal of statues honoring great men or events associated with American history such as Columbus, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Whittier, Francis Scott Key, Grant, Lee, Appomatox, Ponce de Leon among dozens of other such memorials. The Democrats endorsed the erroneous and corrosive distortion of history promulgated by such groups as the NY (T)(Sl)imes, BLM, the philosophy of ANTIFA and the LGBQT movement - the first proposed the 1619 Project and the latter proposed that there are no such people in nature as men and women while all endorse racial and antisemitic attitudes.
All though each of the above ideologies, individually, are destructive of traditional American values, each became a defining characterization for someone to be considered a Progressive and be willing to support their being the core of the public school curricula.
The Progressives also adopted the hate-filled philosophy of groups such as the PA, Hamas, Sunrise DC and incorporated antisemitism as part of their core ideology. This ancient, hate-filled philosophy has also found a home in Congress in the Democratic Party as demonstrated by the existence of the Leftist group known as the “Squad”: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, Ilha Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley - it should be noted that two of these Representatives are Muslims. This observation does not condemn all Muslims, just those who cannot/will not rid themselves of their 1300 - 1400 yeas of religiously inspired hate. The Abraham Accords is an example of the warm peace that can occur between Muslims and Jews when people adopt truth as their guiding light. Note, very quickly, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco joined The United Arab Emirates in making peace with Israel and there are indications that Saudi Arabia is planning to do the same. We can hope that reason will prevail in the rest of the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Enough of diversion. What has all of this, hopefully, interesting summary of recent sociopolitical events have to do with Thorp and SCIENCE?
If one is familiar with Thorp’s editorials one would quickly perceive that he supports the Progressive movement. In true Leftist tradition, Thorp immediately tries to deflect any possible criticism from the political Left to the Right. Thorp again refers to Kang as he explains that the anti-science on Facebook is due to the Right and he singles out such personalities as Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino as having developed loyal followings “who will believe them no matter what.” I resent that characterization. I am not here to defend Shapiro and Bongino: they are capable of defending themselves. I have difficulty accepting mischaracterizations especially when they reflect on me. I have listened to Shapiro and Bongino and, as a scientist, do not recall any specific anti-science attitudes on their part. Since Thorp did not provide specific examples, I do not know to what he is referring to specifically. Yet, there is much evidence that it is the Left that has been reveling in anti-science. One example is the mandates that they rightly point out are not based on the current scientific information.
I am going to assume - fully realizing the dangers of such a move - that one of the areas to which Thorp is referring pertains to vaccines. I heard Shapiro and more of Bongino speak out against government policies pertaining to vaccinations because they were not based on science. In addition, I know Bongino also pointed out vocally and pictorially on TV, the hypocrisy of the Progressive people in power and their behaviors they, irresponsibly, want to and try to impose on the public, especially with respect to masking, distancing and vaccinations. There is no science to support vaccination of people with natural immunity. After all the people who disagree with the Progressive narrative have been threatened with unemployment. Unlike Thorp’s position that anti- science is promoted by the Right, these anti-science tyrants are all Leftists.
Thorp conveniently fails to discuss the misinformation told by Anthony Fauci and the entire politicization of the subject by the Progressives and the weaponization of government agencies to threaten anyone who disagrees with them.
Thorp, like anyone else, including those the government is threatening for not agreeing to its non-scientific and total political narrative, is entitled to his opinions irrespective of how corrosive they may be to society. However, as Editor-in-Chief of Science Journals of the AAAS, he is no longer speaking for himself: he speaks for the organization which includes the membership. As a 60 year member of the AAAS, I do not recall the leadership asking the membership for it’s input in forming political positions. I do not recall being asked for my input on the leadership supporting organizations promulgating anti-science and hate such as antisemitism.
Who is Thorp to arrogate unto himself the right to use the offices of the AAAS for dispensing his anti-social views to the public?
If Thorp is going to adopt and support anti-science and anti-societal positions, then let him do so as a private citizen, not as Editor-in-Chief of Science and not as a representative of an organization like the AAAS.
Thorp either must be made to resign or be fired. He should not be abusing his exalted position to spread misinformation and not too subtle hate. From my parochial perspective, the AAAS should not be using its megaphone to contribute to the horrific growth of antisemitism in the USA and throughout the world.