Personal or Apolitical?

When I read the article on the website regarding answers to key questions raised by Crichton, I was indifferent. It's stated that his views go on to warn about the danger of politicizing science, arguing (citing Eugenics as a case in point) that the insertion of subjective values into science corrupts the scientific process leading to bad policy decisons. Instead, all values should be eliminated from scientific endeavors, scientists should be dispassionate, objective analysts and suppress the temptation to use science to advocate for or against certain policies or actions. I believe that there is some truth to his opinion. Everyone, scientist or not, possesses their own values and passions, whether it be from nature or nurture. These values are always going to permeate through when one is stating their oppinion or devloping a policy. It's part of who you are, it's your identity. In order for science to be "true" science, it seems as though they would have to literally find an individual from another planet, who hasn't been subjected to our cultural myths and specifications.

As far as activists with ulterior motives, I don't necessarily believe that money is their main or only interest. I feel as though they have been subjected and kind of jumped on the wagon because it seems like the "right" or noble things to do. But just like the "black boxes," do they really know about global warming and how it's affecting our environment? Do they really do EVERYTHING greener? I think that they may have good intentions, but the purpose gets lost in the glitz and propaganda. They hear so much about global warming, and immediately side against it, without really knowing the true causation or if we can even solve the problem through behavior modification. I'm sure there are preventative steps that can be taken, but is it enough to really make a difference or is it inevitable?