Why should science have a (it's own) "moral compass"? And why should Richard Horton decide what is science's moral compass's true north?

I think a lot of what Horton has produced is good evidence of broader moral & political decay -- & the decline of institutional science, too. https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1280978159547154432

This is a degenerate.

Horton wants to claim a crisis exists & to mobilise doctors *politically* in the aversion of that crisis.

He cannot produce *any* evidence that the crisis exists. He cannot respond to any criticism of his political agenda.

He uses scientific institutions for political ends.

Body counts make for terrible moral orientation. Horton wants to use the number of deaths to get doctors to attack the government. This forgets his own marshalling of panic and fear -- after having seemingly counselled against fear mongering. He sensed the opportunity. ...

Second it forgets the body count that is caused by the actions he favoured -- closing down the NHS and society.

This has a direct parallel in his comments on the climate.

Estimates of climate change mortality risks are used to advocate for aggressive mitigation policies.

But this forgets the role of cheap, abundant and accessible energy in reducing the diseases of poverty which are wrongly attributed to climate change.

That is to say that the actual body count from climate change is negative. The use of fossil fuels makes millions, perhaps billions of lives *possible*. And not only possible -- better.

The disparity between the alarmist's picture and reality is owed to his ideological ambition.

That is furthermore to say that ideological ambitions such as Horton's are more dangerous than climate change. They will kill more people. They will trap more people in poverty, for much longer.