Welcome to Ayn Rand's State Science Institute

Ayn Rand's seminal novel "Atlas Shrugged" introduced us to several concepts: Galt’s Gulch, the philosophy of objectivism, and turning off the engine of the world via a strike of the productive entrepreneurs. However, one concept that often gets overlooked is the State Science Institute (SSI). In Rand’s book, the SSI represents a pivotal critique of government intervention in scientific research and the consequences of politicizing science. As a state-run entity, the SSI epitomizes the suppression of innovation and the manipulation of scientific endeavors to serve political ends rather than the pursuit of objective truth.

There will be no gulch and the productive people of this world will never abandon their endeavors; however, the SSI is one prediction that Rand got EXACTLY right. This fictional institute serves as a stark warning about the dangers of subordinating science to political agendas. In contemporary society, the themes illustrated by the SSI resonate in debates surrounding the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and climate change.

Modern Parallels: COVID-19 Origins

The debate over the origins of COVID-19 has been fraught with political interference, echoing the themes of the SSI. Early in the pandemic, the hypothesis that the virus might have accidentally leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, was dismissed by many as a conspiracy theory. However, as investigations have progressed, this theory has not only gained more credibility, but is now actually the prevailing narrative of U.S. intelligence services.

The initial dismissal of the lab-leak theory highlights how political pressures and the desire to maintain certain narratives can overshadow objective scientific inquiry. As FOIA documents and emails now show, Little Lord Fauci was very busy getting the story straight with his compatriots. Initial emails showed that these "top scientists" believed that the virus was not consistent with evolutionary development. Specifically, on January 31, 2020, Kristian Andersen, a virologist, noted in an email to Fauci that certain unusual features of the virus potentially looked "engineered." Fauci took the conversation with these top scientists private, and lo and behold, days later they published the most disingenuous paper ever in the Lancet stating that denial of the natural origins of Covid-19 was nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

We now know that this was not just to take the limelight off the Wuhan lab, but to prevent people from finding out that Fauci’s own NIAID and the NIH had indirectly funded (through EcoHealth Alliance) the gain of function research going on there. Just as the SSI in "Atlas Shrugged" was more concerned with political implications than scientific truth, contemporary institutions, governments, and academia often prioritize political correctness (don’t call it the “China” virus) and CYA over a transparent and thorough investigation into the pandemic's origins.

Modern Parallels: COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy

The rollout of COVID-19 vaccines has been trumpeted as a monumental scientific achievement, yet it has also been accompanied by significant controversy and politicization. Debates over vaccine efficacy, safety, and mandates have often been influenced by political agendas and money rather than purely scientific evidence.

We must not forget how the vaccines were sold to the public. 100% effective, then 95% effective, then 50%..and on down to, well, it doesn’t stop you from getting it, but it makes it milder. We were told by the president himself, “if you get vaccinated, you won’t get Covid-19.” He also told us that we had a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” Neither of these were true. Additionally, after being told it was important to prevent the spread of the virus, now it turns out that being vaccinated doesn’t prevent you from spreading it at all. Moreover, Fauci & companies knew all this. Pfizer’s own trials indicated these facts which is why they wanted to release data over 70 years. They simply lied to us all.

The efforts to denigrate hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were shameless. The CDC called ivermectin “horse paste” and told us to “stop it” even though Ivermectin’s developers won the Nobel Prize in 2015 for its use against infections. It has been widely prescribed TO PEOPLE ever since. The question is why would the CDC, a government institution with a great reputation for decades, sully itself for something plainly false? As in most things, follow the money. For Moderna and Pfizer to profit from the rushed vaccine rollout, they needed “emergency use authorization” (EUA). To obtain that authorization, there needed to exist no alternate or effective treatment. Therefore, there was a direct campaign to disparage ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. It was obviously an effort to get the EUA for the new mRNA vaccines since they were so new.

RFK Jr.’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci” lays out the case well. Over the last few decades, the NIH, NIAID, and the CDC have experienced “regulatory capture.” This is when officers in charge of regulatory agencies do the bidding of the companies they are supposed to be regulating. Not only do they NOT punish the major companies in their sector, but they also use the powers inherent in their positions to limit the emergence of competition in their field. In this case, the pharmaceutical companies control not just the U.S. government agencies that are supposed to regulate them, but also medical schools where our doctors are being trained. Ya ever wonder why today’s doctors seem to be more drug pushers than anything else?

Government agencies’ stances on vaccines, their booster policies, and the repeated lies about efficacy as reported by different countries and manufacturers have led to public confusion and skepticism, if not outright mistrust. This ignoring of their own facts and studies in favor of their pharmaceutical overlords shows us that these agencies combined for the perfect equivalent of Rand’s State Science Institute.

Modern Parallels: Climate Change

Climate change is another area where the interplay between science and politics is highly pronounced. It’s an often-repeated trope with climate activists that we are all going to die due to man’s activities – mainly burning fossil fuels and generating loads of CO2. It’s an “existential threat.” Always be aware when there is a “scientific consensus.” The State Science Institute likes to remind us all that to argue against their positions is to disagree with science itself. Remember Fauci proclaiming just such a thing?

The funny thing is that these prognosticators insist that we heed their warnings even when they continue to be wrong. It’s a case of the “Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Will an actual wolf appear? Maybe, but it’s hard to take these people seriously. Just take a look at this list:

James Hansen (1988): NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress in 1988, predicting significant temperature increases and the possibility of coastal flooding, droughts, and other extreme weather events by the early 2000s. Statistically speaking, the weather remained well within historical norms.

Paul Ehrlich (1980s and 1990s): Paul Ehrlich, a biologist and author of "The Population Bomb," made several predictions about global warming and environmental collapse throughout the 1980s and 1990s. He predicted that entire nations would be wiped out by the year 2000 due to climate change and other environmental issues, which did not happen.

Prince Charles (2009): In 2009, Prince Charles warned that the world had only 96 months (8 years) to avert dangerous climate change and prevent catastrophic impacts. This deadline passed in 2017 without the predicted level of catastrophe occurring.

Al Gore (2006): In his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore suggested that significant parts of the world could face catastrophic impacts from climate change within the next decade, including massive sea-level rise and more frequent extreme weather events. The specific catastrophic scenarios he predicted for that timeframe have not materialized.

Noel Brown (1989): Noel Brown, a senior environmental official at the United Nations, warned that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if global warming was not reversed by the year 2000. This prediction did not come to pass.

The media does not generally hold these people to account when they come back with new predictions of catastrophe. Instead, they nod their collective heads in stern agreement and point to the latest weather occurrences as PROOF that climate change is a dangerous threat. This dynamic mirrors the SSI's role in "Atlas Shrugged," where scientific integrity is compromised by political expediency.

Why is there little or no scientific research published minimizing man’s impact on the climate? Research studies in academia require funding – lots of it. Such studies require supercomputers, mainframes, access to data models, etc. Additionally, salaried scientists would need to be working on the project. As such, any would-be researcher needs to request funding from the university. These funds are routinely denied to those that would try to debunk or minimize man’s impact on the climate. Moreover, those who would outwardly question what “THE science” has already proclaimed are often ostracized, fired, or just simply ignored. The same holds true with the aforementioned, Anthony Fauci. He controlled the largest single distributor of research grants in the medical field. If you make a point of going against him, your funding is forever withheld.

In conclusion, Ayn Rand's depiction of the State Science Institute in "Atlas Shrugged" serves as a powerful allegory for the potential dangers of politicizing science. The institute's suppression of innovation and distortion of scientific truth for political ends finds echoes in contemporary issues such as the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and climate change. There may not be one institute as Rand envisioned, but the “private-public partnership” of academia, governmental regulatory bodies, and large corporations accomplishes the same thing. When people are discouraged from “questioning THE science,” your ears should perk up. There is no “THE science,” science is a process of endless questioning. Those who try to limit questioning are not really scientists at all. They are autocrats.