I know nothing about movies

Even if you took last year’s vaccine there would be.

Who ?

Exactly

Identity politics

You have weird articles

He is not an immunologist

Wow I’m impressed 🥹

We’re basically saying the same thing — it’s just that your ability to grasp the implicit makes you less dependent on precise wording. You see boundaries as inherent to science, whereas I see them as external factors.

Political priorities and social values can shape what research gets funded or restricted, but they don’t define what science is. Funding issues or ethical boundaries represent the influence of society on science — not an intrinsic feature of science itself.
2/

I see where that argument comes from, but I don’t fully agree.
Ofc funding and regulations come from politics — that’s inevitable. But I don’t think that makes science itself political. To me, science remains a method and a pursuit of knowledge that exists independently of those external forces.
1/

ICJ on the other hand deals with disputes between states. It can rule on whether a state violated the Genocide Convention (for example, failing to prevent genocide, or not cooperating with investigations). But it doesn’t prosecute crimes like génocide. That’s ICC territory.
3/3

Only the ICC decides whether to investigate individuals for crimes like genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. In Gaza, the ICC decided not to investigate genocide. So no criminal case for genocide is ongoing. In Darfur, yes, because it found there are reasonable grounds to believe.
2/3

Your thread is much better than the article itself.
I have to mention a huge mistake they made: “the genocide case filed at the International Court of Justice”This statement is absolutely *incorrect* for many reasons, and above all because it’s not even ICJ’s jurisdiction.
1/3

Funding is funding — and it requires skills I don’t have.
Science is science.
When funding issues arise, they harm science, but I see that as interference from policy or society, not as something inherent to science itself.

No, science exists by itself, doesn’t care about policy or society. Evidence doesn’t depend on scientists who collect it.
When they are intertwined, it’s a failure to preserve science from ideology