This article appears to be part of 142.177's attempt to impress their idiosyncratic critique of science on Wikipedia, defining new terms as they go. Reference version: [1]

Googling for "infrastructure bias" finds lots of copies of this article in Wikipedia-clones, and a very few uses in other contexts, where it is used to mean things like

• bias of sampling by laziness: "Infrastructure bias is the disproportionate sampling of areas near roads and towns." http://www.earthscape.org/r2/scb/scb14_6/hir01/hir01.html
• location of telecommunications resources: "If such bias is found to be significant in a region, then public policies and government investment must be designed to correct infrastructure bias." http://ltl13.exp.sis.pitt.edu/Website/Webresume/ESRIPaper/P147.htm
• company organization: "the acquisition improves the end-use balance of JURA’s existing business from its traditional infrastructure bias and extends its reach to the critically important Zürich market and its environs." http://www.crh.ie/crhplc/news/releases/2004/2004-07-06/
• location of resources, again "strings attached to most central government subsidies; infrastructure bias; tie funding to spatial planning & transport / env. appraisal results not to modes" http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpc/pdf/1d_conclusions.pdf , page 8 of 14.

So: apart from this article "infrastructure bias" is not only not in wide use, it is apparently not in any use as a term in ethics or in the sense of this article. I suggest deletion on the grounds of Wikipedia:No original research, failing the Wikipedia:Google test, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

By the way; I'm not advocating that we suppress criticism of science in the pages of Wikipedia; there are many criticisms of science and its uses which deserve to be thoroughly covered in Wikipedia. What I'm advocating is that we apply the same NPOV approach to these articles as any other.

-- The Anome 09:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Not terribly keen on the page itself but the concept is sensible.

OK, I've replaced it with a very amall NPOV rewrite, with the politics and the idiosyncrasy taken out. Is this better? -- The Anome 10:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep rewrite. Useful concept. (William M. Connolley 13:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC))
• Keep rewrite. (We only measure cells after we invent the microscope, the questions we can ask are biased by the tools we've already made?) Geogre 14:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The rewrite is cogent and would make a good initial stab at an article ... if the phrase was in general (or even specialised) use to begin with. However, I don't think that has been sufficiently demonstrated. Noisy 18:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a neologism that hasn't quite caught on. First three pages of Google hits are almost entirely WP clones. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Filtering out Wikipedia clones on google leaves very little in the way of verification. Call it a neologism for the time being and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I lean toward keep. I found several uses [www.uneptie.org/energy/act/pol/wokshops/bangkok/docs/roaring.doc] [www.ifgb.uni-hannover.de/institut/1_eue/lehre_eue1/skripte/Int_Org_iDev_SS04/Hannover%20slides%20Tim.ppt] [2] in serious context that match the definition given in the current version of the article. Google is probably biased against a term like this, since it's somewhat technical and isn't going to be used in casual conversation. (sorry, a couple of those links don't seem to work. Isomorphic 05:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The words may occasionally be used together to mean something like what the rewrite is saying, but "infrastructure bias" doesn't seem to be accepted as a term. -- WOT 20:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)