'One-Party Science'

J. Philippe Rushton certainly hits the nail on the head in his Commentary on "one-party science" (The Scientist, Oct. 3, 1994, page 13). His research on physical traits as related to race has caused him to be scorned as a pariah in the scientific community, without regard to his work's factual merits. But the "one-party system" goes far beyond Rushton. What if a life-sciences researcher stated that he doubted the hypothesis that evolution is responsible for the present diversity of biological

Jay Sonenthal
Apr 2, 1995

J. Philippe Rushton certainly hits the nail on the head in his Commentary on "one-party science" (The Scientist, Oct. 3, 1994, page 13). His research on physical traits as related to race has caused him to be scorned as a pariah in the scientific community, without regard to his work's factual merits. But the "one-party system" goes far beyond Rushton.

What if a life-sciences researcher stated that he doubted the hypothesis that evolution is responsible for the present diversity of biological species? This hypothesis is not even provable, since it addresses historical events. Surely intellectual freedom would demand he be allowed to express such doubts. Yet we all know he would not last very long in the scientific world, since he had blasphemed the party line.

Let's face it, scientists are a reactionary and conformist group of people, who are dedicated primarily to furthering their own careers at...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?