Smothering Science

Hello! The following is a final paper I wrote for a class I took in the Spring. It has been adapted to be posted on this blog. Hope you enjoy!

Smothering Science:

How a Lack of Communication Leads to the Politicization of Science and its Consequences 

Politics should inform science, lest it go too far and become repugnant. On the other side, science should inform policy, creating laws and regulations that will positively influence public wellbeing. However, the two shouldn’t be intertwined. 

In recent American history, politics and science have almost become substitutes for one another. Science has gotten so politicized that it is hard to distinguish what science is actually useful, and what science is being perpetuated to accomplish a greater, possibly immoral, goal. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought this dangerous entangling of politics and science to the forefront.  COVID containment and mitigation policies have become so politicized that the actual science is often warped and lost. 

Especially in the early, uncertain days of the pandemic, both Democrats and Republicans almost seemed so worried about keeping power that they forgot their actual mission was to preserve the wellbeing of the citizens electing them. Republicans were more likely to endorse the anti-vaccine rhetoric, while Democrats imposed strict lockdowns that had harmful effects on mental health, as well as the social and economic wellbeing of society. Both parties used their respective tactics to sell their politics to the public and churn up support for their respective parties and platforms. The politicization of science has only negative effects on the public, as important, fact-based findings get bogged down with polarized rhetoric, leading to misinformation and the perpetuation of injustice that typically falls on minorities and target identities.

Politics perhaps most notably infiltrated vaccine development and distribution. When the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine came out on December 11, 2020, it was met with a plethora of reactions. Politicians of all sides released statements of outstanding support as well as deep skepticism. This marked the beginning of the vaccine misinformation. Despite assurances from top public health officials, vaccine misinformation began to penetrate American society, causing a deep mistrust and perpetuating anti-science rhetoric. Initially, trust in the vaccine was pretty much aligned with political party name identification. Both Kamala Harris and Joe Biden expressed doubts about the vaccine’s creation and legitimacy under the Trump Administration, despite strong, public assurances by health officials around the nation. Furthermore, instead of one, clear scientific voice, the Trump administration frequently went against the officials in charge of the vaccine in promoting their own information even while some officials expressed doubts about the rapidness of its development.  It was hard to figure out what to believe, as trust in the COVID vaccines seemed to have more to do with political belief than actual science. 

Politics infiltrated the scientific discovery, communication, and trust that was needed to properly and safely create and distribute a COVID vaccine. The brute of this impact was felt by minorities. One study points to African Americans' distrust in government, as well as the medical profession more broadly, as a main factor for hesticeny in receiving the COVID vaccine. This distrust is completely justified given the racism in medical research felt by the community in the past. However presently, during the pandemic, the mistrust also has a completely valid source. With President Trump in office, he repeatedly made racist claims and perpetuated racism in general. Of course the African American community didn’t trust the administration. Unfortunately, this mistrust led to lower vaccination rates in the African American community, with data pointing to white Americans getting vaccinated at a rate (13%) almost twice as high as the rate (7%) of African Americans as when the vaccine first came out.

  Crucially, the COVID-19 pandemic is just one example of science being politicized leading to negative consequences. The politicization of science happens every day. Politicians, at the end of the day, want to get reelected to serve their communities. Commenting on science is only natural, but unfortunately when people in positions of power, especially when those individuals hold one or more agent identities, commenting on science can lead to drastic ramifications for those they were meant to serve. The issue isn’t that people talk about science, it's that scientists don’t know how to properly communicate their science to avoid the political blanket that may engulf and smother it.

This issue is not one that can be solved overnight, yet progress can be made. At the end of the day, the issue is mostly dealing with communication of science and health guidelines to the public. Therefore, having experts giving briefings, doing press, appearing on news and talk shows is a good way to deliver a clear, scientific, streamlined message to the public. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, notably, many Americans felt grievances with the way some of their questions were answered, feeling the scientific community shut them down but didn't explain why certain medicines or treatments were ineffective or dangerous. For example, many Americans heard about a possible treatment for COVID, Ivermectin. However upon raising their concerns and questions regarding it to the scientific and medical community, they were shut down by experts.

To be clear, Ivermectin has been shown to be an ineffective treatment against COVID, and the doctors prescribing it went against the FDA, CDC, and general scientific community’s guidelines. However, that being said, the topic wasn’t discussed in a way that satisfactorily answered the many of the public's questions. The scientific community, instead, left many having to discern why Ivermectin was ineffective (this obviously wasn’t helped by politicians fueling Ivermectin fire). Scientists ought to field legitimate questions and concerns the public has regarding the best practices to treat illness, or interpret the newest scientific discoveries. 

The issue at its core is one of communication. Lack of communication has been shown to negatively affect millions of individuals, but especially minorities and those holding target identities. Forming a communication strategy that specifically holds these groups in mind would be the best way to mitigate and solve the problem. Avoiding the politicization of science is paramount to the safety and wellbeing of the public. Developing new strategies to accurately communicate scientific discoveries and information to the public, as well as working with and educating those in power to provide safe and valuable information to the public are just two proposed solutions to this problem, however powerful ones at that.

"tangled wires" by tangledwires is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.

Previous
Previous

Debate Primer: The Supreme Court

Next
Next

Debate Primer: Morton Schapiro