Yves here. Articles like this often frustrate me. While they adopt a seemingly reasonable tone, they tend to rely heavily on stereotypes. More importantly, they fall back on the Obama-era notion that every issue can be resolved through improved messaging. The complexities surrounding science, particularly “The Science,” are unlikely to be easily addressed.
Understanding Political Interference in Science
First, the attacks initiated by Trump on funding major universities were not solely aimed at dismantling scientific research; rather, they were part of a broader campaign against perceived ideological enemies, specifically those promoting “wokeness.” These universities have increasingly become strongholds for the Democratic Party. The bloated administrative structures and capital spending—largely financed by escalating student loans—have failed to enhance the quality of education and research. Instead, they’ve inflated staffing and compensation levels, creating a more affluent faction within the Democratic Party.
Additionally, Trump’s motivations were personal. Many academics produced op-eds supporting the Russiagate narrative during his first term, and the fallout from political maneuvers only deepened his animosity toward academic institutions.
Trump relishes chaos and often disregards collateral damage—unless checkmated by monumental economic forces, such as Xi Jinping in the dispute over rare earth minerals or the financial market consequences of policy changes like the Liberation Day tariffs.
Gaslighting the Public on Science
Second, Trump gave Elon Musk and his cryptocurrency advocates widespread freedom to propagate misleading messages about fraud and inefficiency purportedly rampant in various sectors. Interestingly, they seldom mentioned the vast amounts wasted on defense spending, yet this narrative resonated not only with Trump’s supporters but also with a broader audience of conservatives and libertarians who vehemently oppose any government expenditure. Many refuse to acknowledge programs that yield net benefits and are executed at lower costs than their private sector counterparts.
Third, the adverse impact on the public perception of science during the Covid pandemic must not be overlooked. The phrase “Trust the Science” has become linked to authoritarianism and dishonesty, polarizing public opinion. While it’s clear that vaccines were beneficial at a population level, severe adverse effects for specific individuals were often downplayed, and there remained little foresight on who might be most vulnerable.
Coercion surrounding vaccine mandates, bolstered by the false assertion that vaccinations would curb the spread of Covid, exacerbated these issues. Reports of menstrual irregularities following vaccination led many young women, including nurses, to hesitate. Despite credible accounts surfacing, the medical establishment often dismissed such concerns with condescending remarks rather than investigating them thoroughly.
Failures of Communication and Accountability
Moreover, the argument that “masks don’t work” was poorly articulated. A simple demonstration involving an anti-mask advocate in a toxic fumes factory could effectively debunk this fallacy. Instead of addressing the right use of masks in medical environments, the focus remained superficial.
Apart from this, the tarnished image of science, especially in the medical field, was further damaged by failings during the pandemic. For example, individuals who suffered medical negligence, such as a renowned tech executive whose father was harmed by doctors, demonstrate the pervasive distrust in medical authorities. Similarly, there exists a glaring lack of accountability for the harm caused by unethical practices, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, where profits often take precedence over human lives.
This piece assumes that right-wing hostility toward science, mainly in the realm of medical science for profit, can be pacified with better messaging. However, the root issue lies in elite corruption and the failure of those in power to hold wrongdoers accountable. This systemic negligence extends back to the financial crisis, where few faced any repercussions, leaving a dangerous precedent that profit comes before public welfare.
It is much easier to condemn “murder for profit” in movies than to question the inertia or fear present within elite organizations, where silence from witnesses and enablers has become commonplace.
Addressing Grievances Effectively
In summary, anti-science sentiments stem from real grievances, even if they are often misdirected.
By Paul Sutter, a cosmologist at Johns Hopkins University and author of “Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt.” Originally published at Undark
It’s not yet at the stage of literal burning of scientists at the stake, but the Trump administration has certainly waged an overt war against universities, shutting down independent scientific review bodies and slashing funding for research grants. Moreover, critical government research centers have faced significant scrutiny or closure. The evidence is clear: the current American scientific framework cannot function as a neutral institution with bipartisan backing. Science finds itself in a generational crisis, not just regarding funding but also political and public support.
Since World War II and the success of the Manhattan Project, the U.S. government has channeled substantial money into universities through competitive grant programs aimed at advancing fundamental scientific research. This investment transformed the American scientific ecosystem into a global benchmark, resulting in numerous technological breakthroughs and contributing significantly to our present wealth. Only large government institutions possess the patience necessary to support long-term projects that turn basic research into substantial economic benefits.
The Immediate Future of Science Funding
That era appears to be behind us, and the only way forward is to adapt. So, what does that involve?
In the short term, scientists and institutions will likely face a challenging and uneven funding landscape. A recent Pew Research Center poll indicates that confidence in scientists among Republican voters remains notably low, even after a slight uptick recently. While Democratic lawmakers are more inclined to safeguard research funding, their Republican counterparts have shown little interest in preserving science as a national priority.
The prospect of restoring the once-consistent support that American institutional science enjoyed appears grim, at least in the short term. We will likely witness fewer major scientific achievements, such as advanced telescopes launching or sustainable technology development. As competition for funding intensifies, even small but crucial scientific advancements may struggle for survival in a dwindling pool of resources.
Researchers must also learn to engage with Republican leadership, including Trump’s most adamant supporters. This won’t be easy, as many Republican leaders have criticized modern science and academic frameworks for perceived biases and insufficient justification for scientific initiatives. While these criticisms may be challenging for researchers to accept, they also possess merit.
For too long, issues like research fraud and subpar scientific practices have gone unaddressed. Coupled with ineffective public communication about our findings and an aversion to taking risks for funding opportunities, the scientific community’s shortcomings only provide fodder for its most vocal detractors. Although some will always aim to undermine science, we can effectively counter anti-science rhetoric by openly admitting and tackling these persistent issues.
Rebuilding Trust Through Communication
To foster trust in science, researchers will need to rejuvenate their communication strategies, which includes engaging directly with the public. Despite burgeoning mistrust among segments of the political right, a majority of Americans still appreciate and back scientific endeavors. A recent poll revealed that 76 percent of Americans believe scientists act in the public’s best interests.
This statistic offers a glimmer of hope in an increasingly polarized environment, especially when consensus on trivial matters often proves elusive.
However, public trust in science does not necessarily translate to robust support for funding, particularly when many individuals are contending with financial strains. During economic hardship, science may be perceived as an elective rather than essential service. This circumstance underscores the potential for Republican retrenchment from science under Trump—a challenge scientists will need to confront through innovative messaging.
Conventional arguments stressing financial returns, technological advancements, or unraveling the mysteries of the universe might not resonate as they once did. Science is intertwined with broader societal issues, relying primarily on public funds. If scientists do not articulate the value of their work in relatable terms during these challenging times, they risk further alienating the public.
New Approaches and Strategies
Fortunately, researchers are already contemplating new approaches. Understanding that political and cultural values heavily influence support for science, reaching across ideological divides is vital.
In recent years, pilot studies have explored effective methods for connecting with skeptics on contentious issues. For instance, one study revealed that showcasing video clips of Trump discussing vaccines increased vaccine uptake among audiences. Other studies indicated that trusted figures, such as evangelicals and retired military members, can shift public perceptions on climate change effectively. Research from the liberal think tank New America has shown that climate messages emphasizing innovation tend to resonate more with conservative audiences than those focused solely on environmental protection.
This evidence highlights the necessity for scientists to understand the values, language, and authoritative figures within conservative spaces moving forward. Otherwise, their work risks being overshadowed by public apathy. It’s no longer prudent to assume unwavering support from conservative communities, nor can we guarantee attendance at our lectures or exhibitions.
We must reinvigorate our efforts, reaching out and connecting our scientific mission to the deeply held beliefs and values of these communities. Only then can we successfully convey the significance and relevance of our work as scientists.
