Bias, Suppression, and Intimidation in the Science Lab

Drug companies do not have to report on all of the evidence or experimentation regarding new drugs they want to market. This means that they can merely report on the one positive test out of the 50 negative trials. However, this kind of biased, unbalanced reporting can be used to “prove” the value of any drug!

Is this same bias endemic to other areas of the scientific enterprise? Evidently! Foundations and governmental bodies pour millions, even billions, into research universities, not to find the truth, but to prove evolution. Meanwhile, I am not aware of any such money funding studies to prove ID or creationism.

What will be the inevitable result of such an imbalance in experimentation? Researchers will inevitably “find” what they are looking for!

However, it is not even as simple as this profound imbalance. Intimidation has also become the standard in suppressing unwanted findings. Bruce Malone gives one example of what happened when someone contradicted the establishment orthodoxy pertaining to the dating of the dinosaurs:

·       Mark Armitage, the discoverer of the osteocytes in the triceratops horn, and instructor at a microscopy lab at California State University… showed his students the material. They returned to their Earth science departments excited to share the inconsistency of these finds (which contradicted the evolutionary teaching they were being taught) with their geology, anthropology, and paleontology professors. The result – Armitage was fired from his job within days of his paper being published in July 2013. This was in spite of years of stellar performance and excellent reviews setting up and running the university’s microscopy lab. (Brilliant, 23)

Many such incidents suggest that such repression of divergent voices is standard operating procedure – enough to make even the most gullible suspect of what is currently marketed.