Scientific American, a prestigious publication with a 179-year history, recently made headlines by endorsing a presidential candidate for only the second time ever: Kamala Harris. This move has sparked debates about whether science should take a political stand and the implications of such a decision. Some argue that science should remain apolitical, as its results should be ideologically neutral. However, I believe that the endorsement doesn’t go far enough and that it’s essential for various institutions, not just scientists, to consider their role in electoral politics.
The idea that scientific institutions must be apolitical is a norm that Democrats tend to uphold. However, history has shown that breaking norms can sometimes be necessary to advance democracy. In the past, significant progress has been made by breaking norms that stood in the way of positive change. Therefore, the notion that scientists should not engage in party politics may need to be reevaluated in the current political climate.
Science is fundamentally about revising conclusions based on new evidence. This willingness to adapt and change is what sets science apart from right-wing ideologies, which often rely on eisegesis—interpreting data to fit preconceived beliefs. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of scientific understanding and the dangers of ignoring evidence-based recommendations. The clash between scientific facts and conservative ideologies has been evident in the response to the pandemic, with some conservatives rejecting public health interventions based on changing scientific guidance.
The AIDS crisis of the 1980s provides a historical parallel to the current situation with COVID-19. Conservative responses to AIDS, characterized by moralistic judgments and resistance to evidence-based interventions, mirror the challenges faced in the current pandemic. The story of Dr. C. Everett Koop, who chose to act like a scientist and provide accurate information on AIDS despite conservative pressures, serves as a reminder of the importance of prioritizing facts over ideology.
Conservative scientists, like Robert Redfield, have often navigated a fine line between practicing good science and appeasing conservative ideologies. The ability to compartmentalize beliefs and actions can lead to ethical dilemmas, as seen in Redfield’s past involvement in controversial policies related to HIV testing. The tendency of some conservatives to cherry-pick scientific findings that align with their beliefs further complicates the intersection of science and politics.
In conclusion, the debate over whether science should be politicized is already happening, whether we acknowledge it or not. The endorsement of a presidential candidate by Scientific American is just one example of how science is becoming entangled in political discourse. As we navigate complex issues like the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, it’s crucial to prioritize evidence-based decision-making over ideological biases. The role of science in shaping political discussions and policies will continue to be a contentious issue, but it’s essential to recognize the importance of scientific integrity in informing public discourse and decision-making.