The other week, I discussed a Nature editorial advocating that scientists be required to “register” with the state. That policy, if enacted, would be a step toward establishing a technocratic rule-by-experts system by controlling what would be acceptable scientific discourse and who would be authorized to communicate about such matters.

A new proposal, also in Nature, would push the West toward technocracy. The science journal just published a piece urging the U.N. to establish a panel of scientists — the International Panel on Inequality (IPI) — to determine policies involving income and wealth inequality. From “Why We Need an International Panel on Inequality:”

The consequences [of wealth disparities] are well established. A growing body of research links higher income inequality to lower social mobility, poorer health outcomes and slower economic growth. Unequal access to education, health care, housing and finance shapes the opportunities that direct people’s lives. Yet, all this knowledge has not produced a policy response. One reason is political: inequalities create powerful beneficiaries.

The consequences [of wealth disparities] are well established. A growing body of research links higher income inequality to lower social mobility, poorer health outcomes and slower economic growth. Unequal access to education, health care, housing and finance shapes the opportunities that direct people’s lives.

Yet, all this knowledge has not produced a policy response. One reason is political: inequalities create powerful beneficiaries.

Perhaps. But how is this a science issue?

Evidence on inequality is dispersed across disciplines and institutions. Research on policy effectiveness — showing what has worked, in which contexts and through which mechanisms — is insufficiently synthesized and often........

© National Review