SarahC:

A few questions: One, are you saying that scientists should strive to be ignorant of the existence of widely discussed ideological and moral issues? Is this one of the cases where less knowledge is better than more knowledge?

Well, first, it depends on what they're working on. Many things are remote enough from any conceivable issues of ideology and power politics that this is not a problem; for example, Albert Einsten’s very silly ideology didn't seem to interfere with his physics. However, topics that have bearing on such issues would indeed be best done by space aliens who'd feel complete disconnect from all human concerns. This seems to me like an entirely obvious corollary of the general principle that in the interest of objectivity, a judge should have no personal stakes in the case he presides over.

If scientists could somehow remain ignorant of the ideological implications of their work, this would indeed have a positive effect on their objectivity. But of course that this is impossible in practice, so it would make no sense to strive for it. This is a deep problem without a solution in sight. (Except for palliative measures like increasing public awareness that in ideologically sensitive areas, one should be skeptical even towards work with highly prestigious affiliations.)

Two, what is an ideology? (Of course, I know how to use the word in a sentence, but you use it so often on LW that I wonder if you have a precise definition.) For example, would you describe yourself as having any ideology?

My favorite characterization was given by James Burnham: “An ‘ideology’ is similar in the social sphere to what is sometimes called ‘rationalization’ in the sphere of individual psychology. [...] It is the expression of hopes, wishes, fears, ideals, not a hypothesis about events -- though ideologies are often thought by those who hold them to be scientific theories.” (From The Managerial Revolution.)

Taken in the broadest possible sense, therefore, every person has an ideology, which encompasses all their beliefs, ideas, and attitudes that are not a matter of exact scientific or practical knowledge, and which are at least partly concerned with the public matters of social order (with the implications this has on the practical relations of power and status, although these are rarely stated and discussed openly and explicitly).

In a more narrow sense, however, ideology refers to such beliefs, ideas, and attitudes that are held with an extraordinary level of commitment and passion, which pushes one towards constant conflict -- verbal, propagandistic, political, perhaps even physical -- with those who don't share the same ideological affiliation, and which renders one fatally biased and incapable of rational argument in ideologically charged matters. (In particular, when I call someone an “ideologue,” I refer to such people, especially those who are at the forefront of developing and propagandizing their favored ideological systems.)

Whether I belong to this latter category, well, you be the judge.

Three, of the possible means one could use to achieve one's desires, would you say that writing biased scientific papers is an immoral means? What about persuasive essays?

That depends on your value judgment: how bad is it when someone contributes to the corruption of science? Science is not a natural and resilient mode of human intellectual work. It is something that critically depends on the quality of the institutions pursuing it, and these institutions are easy to corrupt, but almost impossible to fix. That our culture has them at all is, by all historical standards, a lucky accident.

Of course, one biased paper won’t cause much harm by itself, but only in the same sense that perfect forgery of a moderate amount of money harms nobody in particular very much. (On the other hand, I would say that even a single prominent biased career can cause a great deal of damage.) In both cases, if this activity is permitted and becomes widespread, the consequences will be disastrous.