Which era of science was apolitical, exactly? The one where Galileo was prosecuted by the church? Or one where the US military invested billions of dollars into early computer science? Or one where nearly every physicist was staunchly anti-proliferationist ?

Science has not, and will never be, apolitical. It is just that you are noticing that the politics of some scientists does not align with yours or with some politicians, and so you’re noticing the difference.

Do you have any evidence for this?

I suspect in the 60s and 70s science was (in the public imagination) wrapped up in a positive story of the future, full of space travel and prosperity for all. And now science is wrapped in a story (at least for some) of doom and gloom. Climate wars, or creeping authoritarian governments telling people what to think.

I suspect the experience of actual scientists, in labs trying things out, hasn’t changed anywhere near as much as the public’s stories of science have changed.

How is science political? I am happy to work from that premise, but it needs more than an assertion to be taken seriously.

My experience is that people complaining about science being partisan (which they tend to mean by “political”) do not understand much about science or how it works. I am willing to believe that you are not one of those people, but what you write is a bit close. So, could you give some particular examples or facts rather than empty phrases?

Yeah definitely dude. Climate disbelievers are actually doing good faith deep dives into the studies and identifying specific, real problems, and pushing for better science to be done.

This is evidenced by… wait… what exactly?