The spin off discussion about sexual preferences of a Greenpeace unit is a
microcosm of the tactics used to keep the pot boiling in the news to the
delight of the agitators. Obfuscation of the basic issue is a tact that works
as few remember in the heat of battle the importance of the original issue.
Therein science get diluted and obfuscation takes on a life of its own but it
always remains tethered to science in the minds of onlookers.  It is so easy
for the public to generalize and conclude that science activism - no matter
how bona fide and pure - is contaminated by the personal agendas or those
involved. The infamous conflict between advocates of big versus little
science in the Superconducting Super Collider fiasco is an example par
excellence of the difficulties science gets it self into by public activism.

The issue of nonscientist activists being principals in the issues is moot.
For they by their involvement come under the heading of "those interested in
science policy" and they claim a legitimate place in the debates though their
scientific competency may be questionable.

Who does the public tend to believe.  Sadly but true, the side with the best
publicity and public posturing wins the day regardless of the truth - if
there is one. The advice of the pure scientist may become totally obscured
due to political activism of others. This is a fundamental reality of
politics today and science is not exempt from it.  That is why I say that
science advice and activism should be as politically neutral and value free
as possible - at least to get the bone-fide scientific position recorded in
the public record for others to use and misuse. And that is why I called for
a return to the ivory tower so that science can truly discover nature and
teach it without the bias of all the different groups out there who would
have science go in the personally favored directions.  Special interest
politics and science are incestuous bedfellows indeed and we all suffer in
the long run from the bias. In this respect STS ers are categorically correct
in their charge that science is socially constructed, and it is a problem
that will forever plague science as long as its members engage in public
pursuits in the name of "science."

Best wishes,
Stephen Miles Sacks
Scipolocy@aol