Adams Argues that There is a Danger in Politicizing Science. (Photo Credit: avocatl.com)
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
There is nothing wrong with using science to craft policy. Everyone should encourage decisions based on science and evidence as they procure better societal outcomes and increase bipartisanship. However, many people treat policy decisions as science when they may not be scientifically-based. Many politicians also boast that they are “following the science” for political gain. Dogmatic phrases like “trust the science” are grossly dishonest and set a terrible precedent for responding to future crises.
While it may seem menial, it is important to reinforce that science is the systematic study of the physical and natural world’s structure and behavior through inquiry, observations, and experimentation. This means that we can derive a certain set of results or behaviors on physical phenomena under certain conditions. Therefore, certain studies performed under certain conditions do not necessarily prove that a result is repeatable under different conditions.
Science does not constitute an absolute fact or “truth.” Science is a set of humanistic models meant to represent an otherwise complex and multi-layered natural world. Consider when the Ptolemaic geocentric model or Aristotle’s spontaneous generation theory were accepted as “scientific facts.” These claims were eventually disproven by Copernicus’ heliocentric model and Thomas Schwann’s theory that cells come from other cells, respectively. Many beliefs accepted as truths are now considered wrong, demonstrating that science is a continuous art of disproving and proving.
We are still learning about COVID-19. We once thought that COVID-19 spread easily on surfaces and frantically sprayed every package we received. Now, we know it does not spread as easily on surfaces. What does this mean in terms of approach? We must approach these results critically and be just as critical when applying them to craft policy. Therefore, even though we know COVID-19 does not spread easily on surfaces, we still need to exercise caution (but without the needless fear and panic). Lack of in-depth examination of these studies only leads to dogmatic and politically-motivated decisions.
Let’s consider school closings. Studies show that children develop fewer and less severe symptoms of COVID-19. In the U.S., the rate of infection is higher among children aged 12-17 years than among those aged 5-11 years, suggesting that transmission of disease increases with age. Studies have also found that school outbreaks are relatively rare, which suggests a level of uncertainty about whether children significantly contribute to the virus’s spread.
However, does science say to close schools indefinitely, which would strain working parents already having difficulty providing for their children and heightening educational inequities? Last time I checked, science does not say to “close schools.” Instead, public officials decide to close schools based on what they deem necessary according to the data presented.
Masks are also worthy of inquiry. The N95 has the ability to filter out 95% of airborne particles that measure 0.3 microns and larger. Cough droplets from an N95 with a valve can travel to about three feet. And yet, we are standing six feet apart with masks on. Face shields, although very popular, have 23% efficacy over one to 30 minutes of exposure, reducing inhalation of droplets 3.4 microns in size on average. More research is still needed on face shields’ efficacy, and the CDC does not recommend them as substitutes for masks. So should we then accuse hospital personnel of not trusting the science because they use face shields in addition to masks?
Science does not say to enforce a mask mandate. While a mask mandate is effective to some degree, it should not be presented as a solution that will serve everyone well. For instance, what about those with respiratory issues? Or, considering what we know about infection rate among children, should a three-year-old be required to wear a mask? Mask efficacy also depends on the climate, size of the gathering, and a person’s health.
There remains the problem of politicians boasting that they are upholding science while they actually promote unreasonable policies. Because of the partisan divide, we fall into the trap of assuming that our favored leader is making policies based on evidence, even when they are not.
Biden’s advisor called for more lockdowns (fortunately, they turned back on that decision) despite several scientific studies demonstrating that prolonged lockdowns have led to a considerable decline in mental health due to limited interpersonal interaction and lack of outdoor activity. Are heavy restrictions with minimal human interaction truly trusting the science, or are they simply a suggestion based on political value?
The CDC reports that in June 2020, ~30% of adults reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder. As of January 2021, this has increased to where 13.3% of adults have reported new or increased substance use, and 11% reported thoughts of suicide in the past 30 days. So how are lockdowns an act of “trusting science”?
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has emphasized the idea of “trusting science,” has spent large sums of money to support a crushed economy instead of safely reopening schools and small businesses. Despite his claims, Newsom has not consulted with medical scientists to make these decisions. Even New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, who emphasized the idea that “data determines dates,” has rarely consulted with public health experts, particularly with regards to indoor dining, outdoor mask mandates, and school reopenings. He also ignored the CDC’s advice that COVID-19 disproportionately affects the elderly and signed an order requiring nursing homes to take in COVID-19 patients, leading to staggering death rates in nursing homes. How are these politicians all hailed as effective leaders in response to the coronavirus and “trusting the science” when they did not consult with public health officials?
Since our understanding of science is constantly evolving, we should expect policy to reflect the available scientific information. For instance, when the pandemic was in its earlier stages in the United States, it would have been understandable to enforce a mask mandate and lockdown. But as we learned more about the virus and masks, it would be more logical to gradually reopen private and public spaces while enforcing sanitizing and social distancing policies. This way, we could continue cultivating a healthy society while effectively responding to the knowledge we have gained.
It’s not the first time we have seen scientific evidence used politically, and it certainly won’t be the last. However, I will continue to criticize the rhetoric of “trust the science” by politicians. It’s dishonest and leads to the ideologization–– even radicalization––of science.
I also will not endorse the phrase “I believe in science.” Science is not a religion. Science is not an ideology. Science is the art of continually learning about the phenomena surrounding us, disproving and refining past results, and quantifying consistent results into objective, evidence-based theories. It is always changing and is meant to be a resource. If the dogmatization of science continues, many may take scientific results less seriously in the future, a dangerous proposition indeed.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.