media can't accept the scientific evidence on BPA

A brewing ethical brouhaha at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel illustrates the hazards of politicized science reporting

In an era of partisan journalism, some have presumed that at least one area of reporting, science, was insulated from blatant bias. After all, there are facts, and it’s presumably easy to identify when data is being cooked. But that's naive, and a brewing ethical brouhaha at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel underscores how the public can be short-changed when ideology, ambition, or hubris takes precedence over a news organization’s public responsibility to report controversies in context


http://www.american.com/archive/2011/ap ... -no-longer

The news media awakes repeatedly after naps of a decade or so. Science has always been political, false, and influenced by the scientific moguls, prestige, and money. Science is very prejudiced. And the public has very short memory spans.

This is just recent:

On Scientific Fakery and the Systems to Catch It
By KENNETH CHANG (New York Times, 15/October/2002)
In some ways, the pivotal figure in the research misconduct case at Bell Labs was not Dr. J. Hendrik Schön, the
scientist fired last month for fabricating and manipulating data, but Dr. Bertram Batlogg, the man who hired him in
1998.
An investigatory panel cleared Dr. Batlogg, and all other co-authors, of knowledge of the deception. But without
Dr. Batlogg's imprimatur, the remarkable findings in superconductivity and organic electronics, now discredited,
would have been scrutinized more skeptically sooner.

The link: http://www.ece.ucsb.edu/~roy/classnotes/290/schon_nytimes_15Oct2002.pdf

And there are dozens of academic scientific papers that have been published which were proven to be based upon false data. Just jog your memories a little.

The Baltimore Affair
In one of the most highly publicized cases of alleged scientific misconduct in recent memory, which has become known as the "Baltimore Affair," a paper co-authored by Nobel Prize winning scientist David Baltimore was suspected of containing fraudulent data. During the Summer of 1991, the New York Times gave this story front page coverage. This scandal embarrassed the organizations that sponsored the research, including the NIH and the Whitehead Institute, tarnished Baltimore's reputation, attracted the attention of the Congress, and even involved the Secret Service. The paper, which appeared in the 25 April 1986 issue of the journal Cell, listed six authors. Baltimore supervised the research, although he did not perform the experiments. The paper claimed that experiments showed that the insertion of a foreign gene into a mouse can induce the mouse's genes to produce antibodies mimicking those of the foreign gene. If this claim were true, it would suggest that one could control the immune system by using foreing genes to make it produce antibodies. So far, this research has not been confirmed by other scientists. The experiments were conducted at the Whitehead Institute, a lab associated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Tufts University, and they were funded by the NIH.

the link: http://www-vortex.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~alvarov/aacte/etica/baltimore_1998.html

The whole article is well worth reading. Scientists are NOT saints.

major bean wrote: The news media awakes repeatedly after naps of a decade or so. Science has always been political, false, and influenced by the scientific moguls, prestige, and money. Science is very prejudiced. And the public has very short memory spans.

This is just recent:

On Scientific Fakery and the Systems to Catch It
By KENNETH CHANG (New York Times, 15/October/2002)
In some ways, the pivotal figure in the research misconduct case at Bell Labs was not Dr. J. Hendrik Schön, the
scientist fired last month for fabricating and manipulating data, but Dr. Bertram Batlogg, the man who hired him in
1998.
An investigatory panel cleared Dr. Batlogg, and all other co-authors, of knowledge of the deception. But without
Dr. Batlogg's imprimatur, the remarkable findings in superconductivity and organic electronics, now discredited,
would have been scrutinized more skeptically sooner.

The link: http://www.ece.ucsb.edu/~roy/classnotes/290/schon_nytimes_15Oct2002.pdf

And there are dozens of academic scientific papers that have been published which were proven to be based upon false data. Just jog your memories a little.

You revel in making bold proclamations. What a stupid assertion to make that "Science has always been political, false and as you suggest influenced by the scientific moguls, prestige, and money". Outside forces, be it the church , monarchs, or political leaders have always worked hard to control scientific findings it is true. But, science has prevailed on the roots of its honest data. I take it you did not read the linked article at all. There was no manipulation or invention of data, no wrong scientific procedures. The only thing wrong was the media, who unlike most scientists is strongly influence politically and motivated by less than honorable objectives as so clearly indicated,

So you find a dozen examples to make your point and jum to the conclusion that tens of thousand of other peer reviewed publications are invalid? I have no idea where you come from, but your assertions are asinine. I've seen some biased science in my time, and we as a scientific community work to expose the frauds. Also, most scientists actually have integrity which is inconsistent with politics.

Major Bean, yes it was a stupid assertion to make... you just need to add this phrase to make it intelligent....perhaps just an oversight. The phrase, since the 1950's, science has always been political, false and you suggest influenced...

The intellectuals became jealous of the business men and the wealth they had accumulated - so they began to cook their science and make it political.

Naw, Rockdoc Franz, I've made my statement and I'm sticking to it.

Let us consider:
Piltdown man
Nebraska man
Java man
Orce man
Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis (fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor)

Brontosaurus: One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed. The dinosaur’s skeleton was found with the head missing. To complete it, a skull found three or four miles away was added. No one knew this for years. The body actually belonged to a species of Diplodocus and the head was from an Apatosaurus. (source: Paul S. Taylor, The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible, [Chariot Victor Publishing, 1989], pp.12-13)

Hydrarchos, the hoax induced chimera of 3 Basilosaurus skeletons, which was touted by Dr. Albert Koch as the bones of a great sea serpent.

Perhaps the best known case of scientific fraud, the Piltdown Man was believed to be the earliest-known human from Western Europe. In fact, it was the jaw of an ape (with filed teeth) paired with a human skull. Amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson collected a skull fragment in 1911, and claimed that workmen digging in the gravel pit where the fragment was found had given him another piece years earlier. More excavations turned up more material. Skeptics who suspected that the skull and jaw came from two different animals were flummoxed at the 1915 find of a second individual (Piltdown II) two miles away. Many (planted) animal fossils from the area corroborated Piltdown Man. The Piltdown forgery was far from amateurish; the perpetrator(s) understood human and ape anatomy, fossils of "contemporary" fauna, and even the gravel beds where the fossils were collected. It wasn't until 1953 that three scientists (Sir Wilfrid Le Gros Clark, Kenneth Oakley and Joseph Weiner) uncovered the hoax.

Anyone who thinks science is false is a hypocrite to even be using a computer.

Computers rely an many fields of science including mathematics, chemistry, physics, material science, computer science and others. Everything must work seemlessly together for the computer to function. Any errors or falsehoods in the science involved would make the whole system fail.

While any field has its black sheep, science is too often criticised for political or religious reasons. If the science doesn't match your political beliefs, some just deny the science even though they have little facts to support their beliefs.

If you still think the world is flat, and the sun and planets rotate around us, then fine. Just keep it to yourself and live by your beliefs without wasing the time of the rest of us. And why beleive the even more incredible things that happen to make a computer work, including quantum physics where electrons can pass through "inpenetrable" barriers as happens all the time in flash memory?

So bottom line, get off the effing computer!