I’ve heard this before, but never seen documentation.
Can you point me to a website that verifies it?
Thanks!
Working now, but will see if I can track it down this evening.
I work in a semi-scientific field and remember being absolutely stunned when I read the details of the EPA’s chicanery on this issue.
Even more shocked when it turned out nobody else was shocked. Lying in a sufficiently noble cause is apparently now virtuous.
When I use this as an example of scientifically unethical conduct in classes I teach occasionally, many of the students just cannot understand my point. If I disagree with the EPA’s conduct, it must be because I’m in favor of smoking and/or lung cancer.
Much the same POV pops up with regard to scientific study of the heritability of intelligence, only in an even more virulent form. Whether or not Group A is (on average) more intelligent than Group B is something that can be determined by good science. Those who object violently to even doing the science are pretty obviously clear in their own minds what will be found. So they insist nobody be allowed to look, as if ignoring facts makes them (and their consequences) go away.