[flagged]
Scientific American should do this. It should also talk about how and why and by who the science is done, because that is how you IMPROVE THINGS.
Every single time someone complains that something is "political" what they actually mean is that it is questioning the status quo.
Guess what, the status quo is also the result of politics. Whatever the exact system and framework we have at this moment is not some kind of "natural universal default" that just happened to come into existence.
People created it. Thousands of people made millions of choices to get us to where we are, and guess what, that is politics.
Pretending none of that happened or that nothing should change is just ... cowardly.
>Instead you doubled down on remaining ignorant. Not even that, but you think it's worth bragging about on the internet!
All that condescension to hide the fact that you haven't made a point. Stop insulting people and point to something in the magazine you think is worth reading. Or have you not read it either?
I don't know how else to explain this. Politics matters because science is done by people and everything people do is, at some level, political. Who gets funding, how much funding, who works with each other, what gets published, what gets studied, this is all politics.
And if we want the best science to be done, we need to understand why and how these decisions get made, and by whom.
Somtimes it matters a great deal, yes. Sometimes. Not all the time. Not every time. Sometimes.
Or, maybe, perhaps, they did it sometimes.