Scientists Lying about Science IV
Some real solutions to this catastrophic societal problem
This is Part 4 of the discussion of the corrupting influence that the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) has on America. See Part 1, Part 2, & Part 3. This discussion will be the crucial wrap-up: what can be done to fix this mess.
Some Sample Consequences of NAS Substituting Political Science for Real Science —
a) 40+ Million US children have been miseducated regarding Science due to the woefully inadequate NGSS. (See here.) The resulting negative influence of these victimized lemmings on America is incalculable.
b) 600,000± Americans unnecessarily died due to unscientific COVID-19 policies. Instead of being a bastion of credible medical assistance, NAS was (and still is) a contributor of misinformation, so much of this is on them.
c) NAS has been the instigator of (or supported) essentially every major attack on Real Science (climate, energy policies, medical policies, etc.) that we have experienced in America. Why have we tolerated this for so long?
d) Due to the poor example set by NAS, many scientists have been led to believe that the standards of Real Science are arbitrary and relative. As a result, widespread dishonesty, plagiarism, incompetence, etc., infects the field. Here is a sample list. The societal consequences of this are enormous.
Note: Since I have a diverse audience here, I am providing a broad brush treatment of this issue. In effect the National Research Council (NRC) which is a subsidiary of the NAS, is where most of the problems are.
A Powerful Solution for this Catastrophe —
The reflexive response from most people would likely be: “Get rid of NAS!” But we are Critical Thinkers, and even rudimentary thinking would reveal that eliminating NAS would be an inferior option. Why?
Because dumping the NAS would do nothing to address the horrific harm caused by it in the past (e.g., the NGSS). Also, because properly reforming the NAS could result in a powerful positive force for societal good.
Ironically, the NAS situation is very similar to the Department of Education (DOEd) matter. There, also, properly fixing DOEd would be at least a hundred times better than getting rid of it (see here).
What leverage do we have to reform this severely degraded organization? A BIGGIE, as 85%± of NAS funding comes from federal agencies! Since the highly politicized NAS has lost its way, it is an ideal DOGE target.
There have already been some articles about NAS downsizing due to government cuts. However, those are cuts to other agencies that would have paid NAS to do studies. Here is NAS’s response to that situation. Note that there is not a word about NAS getting back to Real Science!
The choice given to NAS would be very simple: completely reform per our outline (below), or forgo all taxpayer funding. They will have little choice.
What Does NAS Need To Do to Genuinely Reform? —
1 - Revise their Mission Statement to specifically focus on Real Science. Carefully define Real Science so there is no misunderstanding that it is significantly different from political science. This will include unequivocal commitments to Critical Thinking and the traditional Scientific Method.
2 - Publicly and unequivocally disavow all ideology that politicizes or is otherwise at odds with Real Science (e.g., equity does not supersede merit).
3 - Currently, there is no official way of disbarring or defrocking scientists who have lost their way regarding their field of Science. To fill this gap, NAS will develop and implement a rating system for US scientists, indicating their prior adherence to the well-defined standards of Real Science (e.g., A+, A, A-, B+, etc.). Then widely publicize this.
4 - Establish a new team of real scientists (A-Grade) and completely revise the NGSS to be NGSS+. The NGSS+ focus will be on teaching Critical Thinking and aggressively supporting the traditional Scientific Method. NGSS+ will resolve all ten of the NGSS problems identified here. Lastly, NGSS+ will explain all of these 30 misconceptions about Real Science to K-12 students.
5 - Using A-Grade scientists: a) rewrite and republish “Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science”, b) publish a Report on what Real Science consists of (like this), c) publish a Real Science Report on Climate (like this), d) publish a Real Science Report on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 fiasco (like this), e) publish a Real Science Report on what needs to be done to get US Higher education back on track (like this), and f) research an publish suggested solutions to the failed “peer-review” system.
6 - Thoroughly review every major Report they have published over the last 20 years. They should be: a) withdrawn, b) revised, or c) reaffirmed (rare).
What Can YOU Do? —
— Make some constructive comments below.
— Pass this commentary on to EVERYONE you know.
— Please help make a connection with someone connected with DOGE or President Trump, and alert them to this commentary. Let me know.
— Correspond with your federal legislators, bringing this exceptionally important matter to their attention.
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!
I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about 1-2 times a week).
Another example is the hysteria about radioactivity and radiation. Hermann Muller conducted flawed research (blasting fruit files with X-rays at 50 million times background levels) and when his interpretation (linear extrapolation to zero without any low-level or low-dose-rate experiments) was exposed as incorrect (he had blasted out entire genes, not caused genetic modifications), he abused his detractors. Barbara McClintock proved he was wrong, but the Nobel Committee gave him a prize anyway. Then Detlev Bronk, who was simultaneously president of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University) and president of the National Academy of Sciences arranged for Rockefeller to provide generous funding for NAS to form the first Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation — BEAR-1 — committee. Dean Rusk was the Rockefeller board member who wrote the letter to Eisenhower to get the ball rolling. One of the six panels was a genetics panel, which fully supported Muller's errors, and the chair was Muller's acolyte Warren Spencer from Rochester, who had conducted a flawed acute-dose study with Curt Stern. This panel's reports, which Britain rejected, are the reason for hysteria about nuclear power, and the reason the examiner puts a ridiculous lead blanket on you before a dental X-ray.
NAS wasn't alone in magnifying and perpetrating this fraud. Science magazine eagerly published Muller's work, and even now refuses to retract it. Marcia McNutt was the editor-in-chief who refused to retract the papers when Jerry Cuttler and Ed Calabrese sent her letters proving the fraud. She went on to become the 22nd president of the NAS.
Details in Section 9.1.1 my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations allow readers to verify I didn't simply make up stuff.
I'd like to see scientific papers and all supporting data online with a comment box popup available, line by line. If there are enough negative comments on a line, that would trigger a review. Registration and verification of who is posting would cut down on swarming. Oftentimes, people working at ground level know and see things that scientists can't see and so don't understand. I'd like to see experience and wisdom, not just IQ, working on scientific communications. Thx!