In 2016, researchers found that the minority-White wage gap was overestimated by about 10% because, at work, non-Whites tended to partake in more leisure, waiting around, etc.
They delayed releasing the study out of fear Trump would "use it as a propaganda piece."
They explicitly admitted that they let their personal politics get in the way of releasing a study with contentious but correct findings.
That doesn't inspire trust, but at the same time, given the topic, it might!
This isn't the worst example of scientists hurting the public for political reasons.
More infamously, this guy stopped the release of the COVID vaccines to prevent Trump from winning re-election in 2020, killing tens of thousands in the process.
Sometimes the stakes of politics in science are tens of thousands of totally innocent people, and sometimes the stakes are that the public isn't supplied a data point in favor of the 'lazy Mexican' stereotype in a prompt manner (or maybe at all? Who knows what's unpublished!)
These sorts of things are examples that speak to my desire for massive shake-up. Politics shouldn't matter whatsoever for science. There's no good reason for it to, and plenty of reasons for it not to.
I have just put out an article dealing with numerous misconceptions about this topic, and a complete explanation of why autism diagnoses have become more common.
It starts with acknowledging that more kids are diagnosed than in the past:
But this is misleading for a few reasons.
One has to do with how this data was sourced. We didn't have a DSM with autism in it before 1980, so all the oldest people in this cohort were diagnosed as adults.
Adults are underdiagnosed. Go out of your way to diagnose? Same rates.
So something is off about this graph.
A major issue is that the older diagnoses here were done under a more arbitrary criteria: Autism has only been a described thing since Kanner's studies in 1943 and mass diagnosis kicked off in 1980.
If you want to "fix" this situation within reason, you need to cut funding.
Doing that has disproportionately negative impacts for the educations of people from socioeconomically worse off backgrounds. Or in other words, it hurts upward educational mobility for the poor.
Or, you could provide this presidential administration with a gift:
Centralize the universities and have the government more directly control all the funding. Make them "free".
This is far more likely than alternatives like 'Just give universities infinite money', but still bad
Compared to twenty years ago, kids are eating some types of ultraprocessed foods more and some types less🧵
For example, one thing there's proportionally less of is sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Meanwhile, there's relatively greater sweet snack consumption.
Overall, the ultraprocessed food (UPF) consumption share is up across young ages to similar degrees.
The increase is definitely there, but it isn't dramatic. For example, going from 61% to 67.5% is an 11% increase in twenty years.
The increase in consumption is not differentiated by the sex of children.
In other words, boys and girls are both eating a bit more ultraprocessed food.