What's going on?
For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has loaded its advisory panels with scientists who receive money, typically grants for research. The committees - Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Committee - can even peer review their own research. One "independent" panel giving advice on the effects of airborne particulates had 17 out of 20 of its members receiving some form of compensation from the EPA. (See blow.)
As the new EPA Director, Scott Pruitt is cleaning house by replacing biased committee members. (Wall Street Journal, "A Step Toward Scientific Integrity at the EPA," July 18, 2017) in many cases, advisory members are from activist groups; scientists with opposing views are rejected.
Many people who supported the EPA's (questionable) agenda on environmental issues maintain this is a "war on science." This is a case of twisting language to avoid truth and casting a shadow on the opposition. The real war on science is a government department devoted to manipulating "science" to fit their agendas with predetermined outcomes created by compromised scientists.
Is the politicization of science another battlefield of the culture war? Who and what can we trust for unbiased information anymore? When is a fact just a theory, and why do we put so much of our faith in the imperfect, biased arena of science? It may be the best thing we have, but it is still best to "trust but verify" or better still, "be skeptical and verify."