There’s a very scary trend about science in this country, and it involves this particular fetish with “unbiased” claims.
There simply can’t be any such thing as an “unbiased” claim.
What “unbiased” claim can suggest that it is better to not kill people than to kill people? Isn’t that “biased”? Then how does it lose value as a claim? How does the fact that something is “biased” dismiss the claim? There is no such thing as an “unbiased” claim; at least not in practice. Sure, the laws of science aren’t subject to bias. But this fetish with “unbiasness” is thrown right out the window when suggesting why we shouldn’t murder people or why we should. Science has no answer to this question: this question involves ethics, and, therefore, “bias” in the way that the term is typically used to dismiss arguments involving value judgments.