Science Hijacked
10 Keys to Restore Scientific Integrity
Last weekend the question of whether it’s possible to save science was asked on the Brownstone Institute science panel where I was speaking. Unfortunately, I was the only panelist who didn’t have the chance to reply to this issue, so I’ll do it in the form of a Substack article.
In my opinion, the status of science is on its best way back into the dark ages. In those times, scientists were forbidden to question the views of the Catholic Church; today this happens in the fields of biology (“women can have penises“, “vaccines are safe and effective“) and climate (“fossil fuels harm the climate“, “net zero cult“, etc.)
Questioning these bizarre claims gets you canceled these days. I’ve been canceled twice from research institutes solely for raising questions and won’t have any future in my profession in Western academia. That’s why I keep on speaking out by highlighting the deficits, but also want to provide solutions that could help overcome the current academic crisis. So here is my list of ten ways to save science:
1. The claim that science can be settled should be banned. Science is never settled, and saying so is extremely unscientific. Those who claimed so during the last three years shouldn’t be allowed to teach anymore and also shouldn’t be introduced as experts anymore.
2. All leading scientists who were in favor of experimental gene therapies, masks, and arbitrary measures should be removed from their positions and pay high fines to funds that support vaccine-injured people.
3. Public funding should be made available for both sides, not only the one that is bowing to Agenda 2030. Privately-funded research and the interests of the respective companies and organizations should be better highlighted in the conflict of interest section.
4. The peer review process should be rendered in a way that it’s transparent and does not allow friends to do a favor for each other (nepotism). It should also be public/transparent, giving everybody the possibility to participate by publicly commenting on research that is undergoing peer review (comparable to community notes on X).
5. Unscientific political ideologies such as wokeism should be able to be challenged at universities. Men can’t get pregnant, and until proven otherwise, claims like that shouldn’t be presented as a fact or even become independent fields or studies.
6. As hinted at in my previous point, students should learn how to think critically and not that men can be women. Critical thinking should be rewarded and not punished for challenging prevailing viewpoints.
7. Universities should be made independent from NGOs, governmental bodies, and companies. Organizations such as the Gates Foundation or private companies should not be able to determine which scientific outcomes are favorable.
8. Universities should reward those employees who question authorities or existing theories and not those who solely support the current things. Because it’s the latter who eventually end up teaching your kids to be uncritical and compliant.
9. The accreditation issue should be critically examined, and alternative forms of validation should be considered that focus on the actual quality of education and research output rather than compliance with standardized norms.
10. The university ranking, published by Times Higher Education, is extremely biased. Have you ever noticed that the so-called best universities are all Anglo-American? This is because the ranking parameters are skewed. For instance, only publications in English are counted, and factors like citation numbers and external funding are overemphasized, which do not necessarily correlate with the actual quality of research or teaching. Additionally, reputational surveys, industry income, and international outlook metrics disproportionately favor these institutions, while comprehensive academic programs and non-English publications are undervalued.
It is a long and arduous path to regain trust in academia. However, since only a small minority perceives the current system as a problem, and the system is firmly entrenched through global entanglements, it will, in my opinion, be an impossibility to revolutionize academia—because a system doesn’t change itself.
On the other hand, more and more people are withdrawing their trust from this system. Alongside an increased number of parents choosing to homeschool their kids, there will also be an increased demand for alternative and anti-woke university and college systems and peer review processes.
Cheers,
Simon
Great article with very good points.
We are currently in a very dangerous situation with regard to universities, where independent thinking young people, and those who are not prepared to put themselves into debt, are rejecting university. A disproportionately large number of the docile, those who are happy to put themselves into debt and those who actively support Agenda 2030 are signing up for degrees.
Of course, the state takes graduates for its fast stream in the police, civil service etc - so the people who are students today in our captured universities are going to be telling us what to think in twenty years' time.
The system is self-selecting the worst people in society - those who don't question tyranny - to have power over us.
A young man of my acquaintance rejected university as too expensive and 'woke' and taught himself to draw and program from the internet. He has since had jobs in the tech industry where he worked alongside graduates, and was more competent than they were. One only has to look at the quality of scientific research to realise that this problem is also present in scientific as well as tech fields.
Just one quibble with your article - the dark ages were so-called 'dark' because we don't have much written history from them. It was the medieval period when the Church was able to influence what early scientists were allowed to say. Even our understanding of that is flawed - it was known before Gallileo that the sun was the centre of the planetary system. Gallileo was born in 1574, the same year that the heliocentric clock in Strasbourg Cathedral was completed. It had already been known and accepted by the Church that the sun was the centre of the universe. Gallileo just got on the wrong side of Church politics, and the story has been used to beat Christianity ever since, and make out that the Church is against science. The Church doesn't always support the correct scientific conclusion (witness the Pope's support for the jabs), but the truth is far more nuanced than the anti-Christian propaganda believed by many.
We start by withdrawing consent and participation from these entities. The list is long.