An incredibly thought provoking Scientific American article about science and politics...

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. Thought provoking but far from good science. It draws a false equivalency attributing

to "Democrats" the skepticism of cell phone emissions and vaccine induced autism, neither of which have any political base as it adherents come from across the political spectrum. It then proceeds to attribute science's withdrawal from public discourse (a debatable phenomenon in itself) to receiving federal funds, completely ignoring the simultaneous commercialization of research through government contracts that deliver a blank check to commercial enterprises interested primarily in developing profits rather than discovery.

In the example of DDT used in the article, it completely ignores its origin and the fact that chemical manufacturers quashed early research that indicated its misuse could have unanticipated, negative effects which only came to light because of the publication of Silent Spring, written by biologist Rachel Carson.

Science's part in the rise of anti-science in America is due far more to the growing control of industrial giants that became giants through war profiteering than to the brief episode of federal finding of pure research. Of course SA is itself today a publication with a primary motivation of profits, rather than the dissemination of scientific discovery and education that motivated its original creation.