Google+
Close

Human Exceptionalism

Life and dignity with Wesley J. Smith.

“Human Right to Science” For “The Scientists”



Text  



The technocracy wants to instill “science” as the primary principle in setting public policy–in other words, scientism. We see this in the global warming and embryonic stem cell debates, as just two examples.

I bring this up because of an article in Science reporting how the UN may soon create a “human right to science.” But the purported “rights” are contradictory and substantially intended to benefit “the scientists.” From the June 14, 2013 article (subscription required):

The SR report identifies four core components of the right: (i) access by everyone, without discrimination, to the benefits of science and its applications, including scientific knowledge; (ii) opportunities for all to contribute to the scientific enterprise and the freedom indispensable for scientific research; (iii) participation of individuals and communities in decision-making about science and the related right to information; and (iv) development of an enabling environment fostering the conservation, development, and diffusion of science and technology (S&T).

Think about the bureaucratic and sovereignty busting possibilities!

But I want to focus on two of the purported new rights, which I underscored in the quote above. First, they don’t really mean # 3 unless we agree to whatever the Science Establishment decides. Recall that when “individuals and communities” participated in the “decision-making” about embryonic stem cell research–actually an ethics issue–opponents of federal funding and treating nascent human life as a corn crop were castigated as “theocrats” and branded “anti-science.” They claimed we wanted children to suffer and paralyzed people to remain using wheelchairs! They also repeatedly lied about the science making it all but impossible to have a rational ethics debate, a tactic still deployed. We see the same kind of castigation and obfuscation in the global warming hysteria and freak out over challenges to neo evolution. Just ask my Discovery Institute pals.

Second, # 2 seeks to create a virtually absolute right to do whatever research scientists want–obviating number 2 because it would grant them a ”right to research” without hindrance from the public at large. We see that claim already being made here in the USA, with advocacy for a First Amendment right to research, for example.

The bottom line is that “the scientists” believe that only they have the right to decide what is done or not done in science, and they want to be at the top of an international technocracy that controls the entire public/science paradigm around the world. 



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review