Recent nomination of anti-science leaders for HHS and CMS is a wake-up call. We need to defend science by staying in our lane to rebuild trust and objectivity.

The recent nominations of science-disrespecting people to lead HHS and CMS should be a wake-up call.

Growing up, I naively believed that antipathy to science was relevant in Galileo’s time, but not modern times. Scientists as people were sometimes treated with disdain — as nerdy, awkward people wearing beanies with propellers, pocket protectors with slide-rules, and thick glasses with tape at the bridge of the nose. But that seemed playful and likely to be motivated as much by intelligence jealousy as hatred. I thought people were respectful of science itself out of gratitude for the obvious gifts of science, such as antibiotics, chemotherapy, refrigeration, telecommunications and air travel. It has only been recently that I realized there has all along been a substantial undercurrent of skepticism and malevolence for science itself within a broad portion of the population.

Looking in the mirror

I am unclear about the relative contribution of various causes of anti-science attitudes. Some of the problem is undoubtedly the result of sustained intentional efforts to discredit science by greedy people with particular interests in denying inconvenient truths, such as tobacco smoke carcinogenesis and fossil-fuel-driven global warming. Some of the problem is probably collateral damage in a more general war against “elites” of all kinds. But, within the scientific disciplines, we need to consider whether scientists’ actions have contributed to the problem.

In a recent editorial in the journal Science, Marcia McNutt, the President of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote:

Although scientists must never shirk their duty to provide the foundation of evidence that can guide policy decisions and to defend science and scientists from political interference, they must avoid the tendency to imply that science dictates policy. It is up to elected officials to determine policy based on the outcomes desired by their constituents. It is the role of science to inform these decision-makers as to whether those desired outcomes are likely to result from the policies being enacted.

I’ve made this same point in a previous post criticizing the CDC and other science and public health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic for making pronouncements that were presented as being purely “science-driven” when the decisions included non-scientific considerations that were not explicitly acknowledged. For example, early assertions that masks were not necessary were undoubtedly influenced by underacknowledged considerations regarding the inadequacy of the supply of personal protective equipment for health care workers. Early dismissal of aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was probably influenced by underacknowledged considerations of the economic implications of ventilation system modifications. I also made this same point in another previous post in which I proposed a “harm index minimization strategy” for public health policy analysis, where people with expertise in various scientific disciplines develop models that predict health and economic outcomes of policy alternatives, and then leave it to political leaders who are better equipped and authorized to consider the values and interests of various constituents and to negotiate and approve the optimal policy alternative.

In McNutt’s editorial, she made a similar point, applied to climate policy:

Although science can affirm that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, science can only predict the outcome of the various policies that might be enacted to address the problem. It is up to society and its elected leadership to decide how to balance these options, including the use of renewable energy, climate adaptation, carbon capture, or even various interventions that reflect sunlight back into space.

Social scientists are the worst offenders

The physical sciences and biological sciences have generally stayed within their objective, apolitical lanes, although they have had difficulty doing so in the domains of environment, nutrition, disease screening and prevention, mental health, epidemiology and public health. But, the greatest difficulties seem to occur in the social science disciplines, including health services research, economics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and especially political science. From my perspective, over the past few decades, many social scientists seem to have given up even the pretense of objectivity, viewing their mission and purpose as “raising awareness” and outright advocacy for positions they take based on their sense of morality and justice, rather than based on observations, measurements and modeling. Just as some physician executives like to wear their white coats and stethoscopes to business meetings because they want to claim special authority, many social scientists wrap themselves in thick social scientific jargon that too often gets tangled up in other jargon used to signal social justice virtue. They use such jargon, along with their academic credentials and the prestigious venues in which they speak and write, to claim special authority when asserting their political positions. This drives common people crazy. People react by rolling their eyes and closing their ears to scientists.

Separate your scientist and non-scientist persona

When any scientist — physical, biological or social — strays into the political lane while wrapped in the vestments and jargon of science, they should feel guilty for cashing in the trust of science in the eyes of the public. That trust takes generations to build up, but can be squandered much more quickly. No matter how strong the scientist feels about the righteousness of their political causes, they should honor and defend science itself, which has great long term value to humanity. Sciences can be defended in small ways, such as by making counter-arguments to specific anti-science rhetoric and misinformation. But the big way to honor and defend science is to produce scientific outputs that are clear, objective and apolitical. We expect judges and generals to refrain from political speech to defend the appearance of objectivity of the justice system and the military. Likewise, scientist should be reluctant to speak politically, and if they choose to do so, they should make it clear to all that they have taken off the vestments of science and dropped the jargon of science and are speaking as a citizen or resident.