Science is political
The value of scientists who are willing to speak out on political issues is only increasing
Today the Royal Society will meet to discuss “Fellows’ behaviour”. Without doubt the fellow they will primarily be discussing is Elon Musk and the behaviour they will be considering may range from his public dissemination of unfounded conspiracy theories to his attacks on the scientific establishment.
Musk is also an important figure (some would argue the most important) within a US administration that is laying siege to science and to scientific inquiry itself. The new administration’s executive orders have restricted research, silenced climate scientists and cut funding, as part of a systematic targeting of the scientific community.
Last week I wrote about the importance of the Royal Society and other scientific institutions taking a stand in the face of the attacks that are facing US science. Some commentators have responded by arguing that scientists should not speak out about politics; that science should be apolitical and that by discussing political issues scientist damage their ability to communicate their science.
Fortunately this is nothing new for me. Throughout my time as a member of Independent SAGE my colleagues and I have been told much that same thing – that scientist should “stay in their lanes” and that scientists should not articulate views on the potential ramifications of scientific evidence. That is not to say that I dismiss these suggestions outright, but rather that I have thought long and hard about these issues and come to a different conclusion: Science is inherently political.
Science doesn’t now make the front page headlines every day in the way it did during the acute phase of the pandemic, so you might expect there would be less of an imperative for scientists to speak out on political issues. But for me the value of scientists who are willing to speak out on political issues is only increasing. This is especially true in the light of the recent attacks on science in the US and abroad perpetrated by the Trump administration.
Whether we like it or not, science and politics are deeply intertwined. Expecting scientists to refrain from political discourse not only undermines the societal impact of their work and neglects the ethical responsibilities inherent in their scientific endeavours, but also leaves scientists and their institutions unable to defend themselves in the face of political attacks. Below I’ll outline ten reasons why scientists cannot and should not refrain from speaking about issues at the interface of science and politics.
1. Influence on Policy and Regulation
Scientific research directly informs public policy. It has done for a long time and it should continue to do so into the future. By engaging in political discourse, scientists ensure that policies are evidence-based, leading to more robust and justifiable policy outcomes. Failing to share the ramifications of their science and advocate for the consequential action could result in policies that ignore scientific insights, to the detriment of society.
2. Advocacy for Research Funding
The allocation of funding for scientific research is inherently political. Governments and institutions prioritise certain areas over others based on political agendas and public interest. By participating actively in political processes, scientists can advocate for sustained or increased funding in critical research areas.
3. Responsibility to Society
Scientists are in a privileged position with regards to the possession of specialised knowledge and expertise. With these come an ethical obligation to share that knowledge with the public and a duty for scientists to employ their expertise for the good of society. In matters like artificial intelligence, public health and environmental conservation scientists must engage policy-makers in order to advocate for policies that prevent harm and promote well-being. Failing to advocate for particular policy directions in these contexts could be seen as tantamount to complicity in the face of preventable adverse outcomes.
4. Countering Misinformation
The proliferation of misinformation in political circles, especially on topics like vaccines and climate change, poses significant risks to public health and safety. Scientists engaging in political discourse can help counteract false narratives by providing accurate information and challenging pseudoscience. This active involvement is crucial in fostering an informed group of representatives in order to promote evidence-based decision-making.
5. Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in Research
Scientific advancements often outpace existing ethical and legal frameworks, leading to dilemmas in some areas (e.g. genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, biotech). Scientists must engage in political discussions to help shape the ethical guidelines and regulations governing their work, ensuring that technological progress aligns with societal values and moral/ethical considerations.
6. Addressing Global Challenges
Issues like climate change, communicable disease spread, and biodiversity loss are global in nature and require coordinated political action informed by scientific research. Scientists' involvement in political processes is essential to advocate for international collaborations and treaties that address these challenges effectively.
7. Promoting Social Justice and Equity
Scientific research can highlight social inequalities and injustices, such as disparities in healthcare access. Scientists should advocate for policies that address these inequities, using their research to inform and drive social change. Remaining silent in the face of injustice contradicts the moral imperatives that guide scientists in their work.
8. Public Engagement with Science
Engagement by scientists, particularly about the potential ramifications of their work, can demystify science and make it more accessible to the public. By participating in political discourse, scientists can bridge the gap between scientific communities and society, fostering a culture that values and understands scientific inquiry.
9. Responding to Societal Needs
Science does not exist in a vacuum; it responds to societal needs and priorities. By engaging politically, scientists can ensure that their research addresses pressing societal issues and contributes to the common good. This alignment between scientific pursuits and societal needs is a key part of the relevance and impact of science.
10. Upholding Scientific Integrity
Finally and most relevant for the current climate, political forces can undermine scientific integrity through censorship, manipulation, or the promotion of ‘alternative facts’. By engaging politically, scientists can defend the autonomy and credibility of their work, ensuring that scientific findings are accurately represented and utilised in policy-making. This active stance helps maintain public trust in science.
The intersection of science and politics is both inescapable and of vital importance. Scientists possess unique expertise that is crucial for informed policy-making and societal progress. Embracing political engagement allows scientists to fulfil their ethical responsibilities, defend the integrity of their work, and contribute meaningfully to addressing the complex challenges facing society today.
Failing to engage in the political issues that surround and influence science is not the virtue that some commentators would have you believe. If anything it is a betrayal of the profound impact that science can and should have on the world.
I wholeheartedly endorse this message.
Excellent, thank you so much. Politicians often ignore science because addressing public health costs. They still don’t seem to understand that a healthy population is a productive one. In addition a ‘healthy’ planet keeps us all safe. Often politicians will choose the scientific narrative that suits their agenda, this can be extremely detrimental to society. Reputable scientists have to speak out, must have a voice to contribute their expertise in way that everyone can access and understand. @IndependentSage is a perfect example and many were and still able to benefit when politicians were talking scientific ‘scribble’ based on pseudoscience. I remember the BBC inviting Professor Christina Pagel to talk about the pandemic, that’s how I found Independent Sage! They followed this with a pseudoscientist for ‘balance’, I could see then how some would accept the latter. Please keep on keeping on and particularly in the ‘climate’ we find ourselves in, we need reputable scientists with a voice!