Should science be regulated?

Question

In my science class, we are having a debate, and I was put onto the team that is supposed to argue for science NOT having to be regulated. Seeing as how I do not agree with what I am supposed to argue for, I need some reasons as to why science should not be regulated. If you have any news articles, or anything else to back up your reasoning, please share it.

What I meant by regulate was if there should be some way to make sure that what scientists report as their finding in the experiments they do is correct, or if they are saying something is going well just to get more funding.
The question was not posed very clearly, so I am trying to make sense of the work-sheet I was giving, which does not have specific question, or point that can be argued over, so I am doing my best at trying to make sense of it.

Answer 1

Well you can point to one effort in human history where attempts were made to regulate scientific (and even religious) thought. It was called: The Spanish Inquisition, which was successful in suppressing much scientific thought and writings as well as imposing violent antisemitic and anti-Islamic persecution. Not a very proud moment in the history of the Catholic Church.

Answer 2

Define your terms.
( I knew you'd hate that...)
BUT- why should we regulate science ?
And how ?
And by whom ?
Regulation, I think in your context, is meant as restrict.Our favorite Prez has told government scientists that Global Warming is a non-topic. THAT is regulation, and reprehensible.
To misquote Grissom on CSI : the evidence is just the evidence...let others draw conclusions, but get ALL the evidence.

Answer 3

Yes, if regulated by me.