So I got this Union of Concerned Scientists email today. The subject was, get this: “Defending Science From Political Interference.” Oh my god, I nearly died. If there is one thing the UCS is, it’s politically biased. They are a bunch of socialists and ‘environmentalists’ (note that that’s different from conservationist) with PhD’s. They then try to imply a correlation between the two.

Why am I on their mailing list? Because they’re a pretty big voice, and occasionally even a blind man can paint a mona lisa. Some of their more conservation-oriented stuff is pretty good. Like their defense of the Endangered Species List as ‘developers’ tried to destroy its intent for financial gain, Bush and the Republican Party of course proving to be all too willing to allow it.

But considering that UCS was, is, and will always be about political interference, by its very nature the UCS is a tainted organization:

UCS was founded in 1969 by faculty members and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who were concerned about the misuse of science and technology in society. Their statement called for the redirection of scientific research to pressing environmental and social problems.

Hard to stay apolitical if we’re talking about ’social problems’. In fact once you use the phrase ’social problem’, no matter what position you take on how to fix it (or whether to ignore it) you’ve made a choice to become politically biased.

Conservation? Ok. Sustainability? I’ll give you that, even if the way they approach it is contradictory (increase population and wealth while decreasing consumption? Something doesn’t add up). But World Peace? Very scientific. Or just look at their mission statement:

Established in 1969, we seek to ensure that all people have clean air, energy and transportation, as well as food that is produced in a safe and sustainable manner. We strive for a future that is free from the threats of global warming and nuclear war, and a planet that supports a rich diversity of life. Sound science guides our efforts to secure changes in government policy, corporate practices and consumer choices that will protect and improve the health of our environment globally, nationally and in communities throughout the United States. In short, UCS seeks a great change in humanity’s stewardship of the earth.

Oh yes, the scientific nature of this organization is practically dripping from these very pages. Spare me. Please. One of my pet peeves is when people in a position of trust or authority misuse it. Whether it’s one of the many ‘Doctors [who are neither scientists nor social engineers] for x’ groups or ‘Mothers [who all need therapy] against y’, it’s wrong.

UCS is as guilty as anyone of this when they pontificate on and on about ‘nuclear war’. Last time I checked, taking a position for or against the existence of nuclear weapons isn’t scientific. Granted I’m not a nuclear physicist, but I do know a couple. I don’t remember them talking about the partial differential equation that could tell you whether it was a good or a bad idea.

Neither do I remember where in my scientific training government regulation of fuel economy was discussed. I certainly don’t remember the part where decreased gasoline prices, and decreased percentage of household income spent on gasoline would somehow increase our incentive to move off oil (yet that’s what UCS supports).

I could keep going on but I think I’ve made my point. Beware of false authority and anyone who claims to be unbiased. And if you excuse me I’m going to have to go puke. The lack of integrity among both scientists and doctors makes me sick.