Was there a reason you omitted nuclear?
What is the "less expensive" way to store & protect your anthrax, or other dangerous pathogen that you'd like to muck with?
You should have picked a better example. Remember just a while ago where a very well funded organization (CDC) with everything you mentioned misplaced some damned smallpox in a friggin' cardboard box?
Believe it or not, most scientists have a tremendous amount of integrity and follow the rigor required by the scientific method.
This is an opinion of yours, regardless of your stating it as fact. There are numerous examples of scientists faking data, fudging data, faking entire studies and seeking confirmation for their bias. They are human with each and every human foible others have. You are also incorrect in that there are a large number of scientists working for oil and other venues you personally don't care for. Your disregard for them only shows your bias - again, opinion, not fact.
no one has had funding cut off due to results
Yet again, utter bull. There are numerous examples of funding drying up if the agenda is not met.
"Produces nothing"? YAAFM. Providing a highly sought after service is not producing nothing.
Having a trigger to fire your weapon conveys permission to use said button.
Utter bullshit analogy. As is all games-based reasoning.
Are you suggesting that said *pacemaker* is storing location information without any method to nondestructively access it? If so, I call bullshit. If not, the cops need only use the same interface to extract the information without killing you.
Excellent sir, although you still haven't beaten Jonathan Coe.
"Written word can be force, too." You mean like people who exaggerate things in their blogs to slander you?
Love makes the world go 'round, with a little help from intrinsic angular momentum.