It really isn't. I am making a claim about a pervasive bias in scientific institutions I view to be course-correcting. I'll acknowledge plenty of scientific results I dislike as being true. Like I really dislike that every room-temperature superconductor thus far hasn't worked, and it really sucks that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne and damages the immune system
It's not completely possible to separate questions like "what is true about the world?" from questions like "how should we behave?", because the former must inform the latter, and the latter intrinsically informs what we choose to look at, whether we acknowledge it or not. Pretending you have no opinions is disingenuous and counterproductive to the endeavor of objectivity, because that's simply not true of anyone, and acknowledging one's biases is strictly necessary for mitigating them. Nonetheless, it is not "politicizing science" inherently to like or dislike certain results, or to think institutional biases exist
It's not completely possible to separate questions like "what is true about the world?" from questions like "how should we behave?", because the former must inform the latter, and the latter intrinsically informs what we choose to look at, whether we acknowledge it or not. Pretending you have no opinions is disingenuous and counterproductive to the endeavor of objectivity, because that's simply not true of anyone, and acknowledging one's biases is strictly necessary for mitigating them. Nonetheless, it is not "politicizing science" inherently to like or dislike certain results, or to think institutional biases exist