Being a scientist requires adherence to evidence based epistemology. That is inherently antithetical to right wing ideology.

Go back 150 years, and you could make a similar argument about scientists needing to be straight white male Christians, from one of a rather small number of countries. Probably with some talk about "one must recognize the ultimate authority of God over mortal man, before one can hope to see past one's own mortal failings, and comprehend even the most modest details our Creator's world...".

Yes. Science was wrong for a long long time. Science being mostly correct is a relatively recent development, and one of the causes of this problem.

No. The "scientific institutions" were mostly wrong.

"Science" is a philosophical methodology, and is neither right nor wrong. However, using science tends to produce highly reliable outcomes (which are implicit in the very nature of the method, but that's a different issue).

Scientists are often very wrong. Lamarck was a very wrong biological theorist. Schottky was very right about tunneling electrons, but a rabid racist.

This is absolutely false.

Reality has a left-wing bias.

... as currently espoused, certainly in the US, and in many other countries. It hasn't always been like this.

The current self-definition of the right wing openly rejects the scientific method.

> Trust in science has been eroded because the field is so dominated by left-wing academics, a leading evolutionary biologist has warned.

> Ella Al-Shamahi, presenter of the BBC’s science series Human, ... says ...

Given her specialty, perhaps she should look into selective pressures against non-left-wing scientists, in recent-decades Western academia? Populations do evolve to better fit their environments and all...

Wonder what the distribution is like among BYU profs/postdocs... And how respected their work is within their fields?

I actually read the article. That's no left. And I say that despite her being in several protected classes.

Leftists like me try to nudge centrists like her to be more left-leaning, but they refuse. Usually with the argument that a middle stance is better and more accepting (hey - compromise!) but never with the argument that meeting the far right in the middle accomplishes the same thing. Hypocrites.

Also, FWIW, "centrists" here means "moderate right wing folks."

"Leftists like me [you]" like to reinforce the "leftists will eat each other" trope.

From the article 'Al-Shamahi, 41, who describes her politics as “wokey-progressive — definitely left-wing”, '

Is it because she's British, from a Muslim background, a Yemeni family, or just that she's a woman that's she's not leftist enough for you?

None of those categories make one a leftist. Progressive leftist policies make one a leftist. And, seeing someone supposedly leftist saying "what's missing here is more right wing views" makes me think hmmm maybe she's more of a centrist than a leftist. Looking at the past 25 years alone in the US, the right has been anti-science, anti-education, anti-free speech (unless it agrees with their view of the world).

If you've read the article as you claim, please quote where she says anything that shows she is anything but a leftist.

The point she is making is about not falling into the trap of tribalism. I am very much to the left (pro UBI and nationalization of key industries), but I am regularly disheartened by the primitive hostility and immediate irrational dismissal of people and ideas on the right (or even 'not far enough on the left'). That (we think) they're wrong doesn't justify treating them like shit and doesn't improve the discourse.

Have you paid attention to the last 25 years? (though I could go back further)

The right has made unforced error after unforced error while treating anyone who disagrees with them like the enemy, while also enacting hateful policies and, at this point, undermining the safety and stability of the country. So, no, I won't feel like they deserve the benefit of doubt or general good will.

You are clearly adding to the problem with the primitive manifestation of your anger.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Note that you didn't provide the requested quote and as such did exactly what I was talking about: irrationally immediately dismissing the author of the article because she dared not being purely left.

The only reason we have to suffer through seeing concepts like "right-wing" or "left-wing" scientists, is because the right (in the US) has politicized science.

Climate change is happening -> left wing propaganda!

Homosexuality is abundant in nature -> ..

Plus other things that I fear are going to start flame wars, since even among us there are people who won't accept the long standing scientific consensus.

in China, all scientists are pro-CCP. in Russia, all scientists are pro-Putin.

I guarantee not all Chinese scientists are pro CCP

that was exactly my point.

In America, we seem to be heading to a day when all scientists are pro-Trump

I'm not sure I understand that.

In Russia and China, the scientists at least claim to be pro-government. In the US, the left wing is against the current government.

Are you saying that there are a lot of right-wing scientists, but that they're afraid of the government? That wouldn't make sense.

Maybe a lot of right-wing scientists exist but don't wish to speak out for some other reason, but it's certainly not the government.

I was trying to say that people whose values don't fit in the Overton window keep their opinions to themselves. In China, it's contempt for the CCP, in Russia, it's contempt for Putin, and in the US, it's contempt for DEI/ESG/etc.

in all three countries, dissent is an informal crime.

Science has either tested tested something rigorously or it hasn’t. I don’t think that 99% of the world scientists thinkanmade climate change is real matters which country they originate.