Is Science Just Too Politicized by the Left?

Every scientist will tell you that science is not a political venture, that science is about truth, and let the chips fall where they may. This axiom is enitely refreshing, providing legitimacy to science. But do scientists really operate this way or are they (or at least many of them) entirely partisan in their thinking?

Very recently, “Science” (science.org) in an editorial entitled “Science is neither red nor blue,” eloquently stated this venereable principle:

“Careers of scientists advance when they improve upon, or show the errors in, the work of others, not by simply agreeing with prior work. Whether conservative or liberal, citizens ignore the nature of reality at their peril.” 

We heartedly agree. But is this what what today’s scientists really think? We’ve come to believe that reciting this aphorism is much like quoting Voltaire to say, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” while figuratively decapitating the person with whom you disagree. (Yes, we know that this quote may be misattributed to Voltaire, and that it first appeared in a 1906 book “The Friends of Voltaire” by historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall.)

But what do scientists really believe? Are they really non-partisans in search of the truth? Or are they entirely partisan to the point where they cannot see the truth. To make this determination, we only need to review another “Science” editorial (“Time to take stock”), published just two days after Trump’s reelection. Here we can see the slant very clearly:

“Although his [Trump’s] success stems partly from a willingness to tap into xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and disregard for truth, his message resonates with a large portion of the American populace who feel alienated from America’s governmental, social, and economic institutions. These include science and higher education.” 

This is not “leaning” left, this is hard left. Of course, these people have every right to speak, so let us echo Voltaire in this respect, but to truly understand them, to know where they are coming from, to appreciate or to critique their science, we need to understand them, who they are, and what makes them tick.

If someone who is a scientist, or who purports to be a scientist, or who wants to be a scientist, or who wants you to think he or she is a scientist, starts out a conversation in this manner, how open would you be to accepting, as science, what they say thereafter about climate change or vaccine safety or even fluoridated water?

But perhaps, you may argue that the referenced “Science” editorial is some sort of outlyier, that this is just one opinion among many divergent opinions. That’s entirely possible, but we are guided against this interpretation by what they published the very next day.

On November 8, 2024, three days after the election, they published a featured interview with a “Global health law expert” from a prestigious American university, a man whom they said had worked in public health for more than 40 years, who stated that the day Trump was reelected was “the darkest day for public health and science in my lifetime.” 

This sure seems “over the top” to us, but if this is what scientists think, we had better factor that into how we think of them, and to what extent we should attribute credibility to their science.