Well, you can't have impartial science when science is being funded by institutions of conflicting economic interests. Period. Identity politics is just a distorted lens through which the core problem manifests.<p>The author barely touches it and the paper mentions funding but not extensively. It's hypocritical not to talk about money when that's the true underlying reason they argue about. It's not about knowledge, it's not about advancement of intellect, it's about who will get funding to survive as a scientist/researcher.<p>If everyone had secured funding, there would be no discussion at all, because all the false science would eventually get discredited and put in the junk bin.
Paywalled, so I can't look at the details. And the details are going to really matter here. What's the paper's exact definition of "impartial"? That's going to determine whether the paper's proposal is sanity itself, or insane, or somewhere between them.<p>I think it's become clear, though, that "follow the science" has become an inadequate epistemology. Some scientists lie. Others do bad science, where the evidence does not support the conclusions. Then some non-scientists lie about science, and others find pieces in the "science" that support their desired position, and construct fine-sounding but cherry-picked presentations designed to mislead. Then people choose sides, and argue with their fingers in their ears for the position they prefer.<p>That is not an adequate methodology for arriving at the truth, either individually or as a society.