11/03/25
“. . .through a freakish exercise of capricious judicial logic, the victim is punished for the crime.” (Merton, 1968, p. 482)
[References at the bottom of this post.]
Is science to blame? Frances Arnold (b. 1956) who was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2018 is
reported to have argued at the 2025 Lindau Nobel prize meeting, that the Trump regime’s cuts in research funding can be attributed partly, no doubt, to “a wider failure to communicate the value of scientific discovery,” Additionally, she is quoted as saying: “Never take for granted that scientific achievement is celebrated—we took it for granted, and for far too long, and we are paying the price.”
This concern with science’s failure to communicate its value to the public is also shared by the former head of the National Science Foundation (NSF), Sethuraman Panchanathan (b. 1960/1). According to him, science has done a “
very poor job” in promoting the social and economic benefits society enjoys thanks to the work of scientists. He also expressed the belief that there is a “fundamental disconnect” between the scientific community and the American public.
Clearly this issue of science communication, science’s connection with the lay public, weighs heavily on the minds of leaders in the scientific community and, no doubt, many others among rank in file scientists.
Misunderstanding science? One academic, a dean of engineering at a major university, bemoaned the fact that scientists and engineers came to believe that “
our work speaks for itself.” She does not blame voters for selecting a candidate who would ‘dismantle’ “the very institutions that made modern life possible.” The voters’ choice, she says, was made “not out of malice but out of misunderstanding.” Although she does not explain what that segment of the voting public misunderstood about science while the other voters appear not to have had that problem, she advocates bringing the message of science “to the people”—presumably, the folks who ‘misunderstand’ science. How do you do that? Not by writing op-eds or by using other media, but by reaching down to the micro-level: around the kitchen table, at family gatherings, at parties, etc. She adds: “
We must engage, face to face, with compassion, humility, courage, and without judgment.” Perhaps the folks she wants to engage with could also have a conversation with this scientist who lost her job thanks to Trump’s MAGA policies and whose ‘only’ ambition was “to be a public servant and do science for the good of the people.”
Science politicized. Another academic, a cognitive scientist, blames the ‘politicization’ of science for the disconnect between scientists and the lay community. He stated: “Scientists want to make inroads and have public opinion better aligned
with scientific consensus. What they ought to do is not teach more
science because that probably won’t help, but rather depoliticise
science, make it so that particular positions are not identity badges of
loyalty to a political or religious coalition.” Yes, in a perfect world… But long gone are the days when one could believe that science and politics were “entirely separate realms” (Jacob, 1992, p. 487). Nowadays, science is tightly woven into the fabric of society and the State. Nowadays, mainstream scientific results (e.g., climate science—more on that below) are considered, by one set of protagonists, as political statements. We’re not in the 18th century, when Priestley’s (1733–1804) house got burned down in July of 1791 and when Lavoisier (1743–1794) lost his head in May of 1794 not because their contemporaries objected to the debunking of phlogiston theory but because the former was an outspoken supporter of both the American and the French revolutions (among other reprehensible beliefs) and the latter because he was a pillar of the Ancien Régime. In those days, science and politics were indeed “entirely separate realms”! Most people were unaware of the debate over “dephlogisticated air,” which, most importantly, had absolutely no impact on their daily lives. And, as far as I am aware, and unlike the climate change issue, opponents in the phlogiston debate did not assign political labels to conflicting conclusions.
Publicizing science? Is what’s happening to the American “scientific enterprise” under
the second Trump rule a result of science’s inability to
demonstrate how beneficial it is to society (
“fed the world, healed the sick, prevented disasters, and connected humanity in ways once thought impossible”)? Can it be attributed to the
complacency of scientists?
Or is it because science has failed to engage with the public at a more personal level? Or is it because it has been “politicized”? Is it reasonable to
think that the “utter chaos” unleashed by Trump and his sycophants could
have been avoided had the scientific community been a better
communicator? Perhaps there is some merit in that opinion . . .
I am not poo-pooing efforts to improve channels of communication. After all there are studies that show that a program like “Bill Nye the Science Guy” (1991-1999) had a
positive impact on its audience. But that was then, this is now (more on that shortly). One science communication advocate suggests that “
science needs marketing.” Specifically, each grant application should include a “marketing and communication” funding plan. But I wonder. . .
Hanging on to beliefs. What if science’s conclusions are in direct conflict with powerful economic interests and/or belief systems? What if what science has to communicate is not what some (many?) people want to hear?
Let’s recall what happened with cigarette
smoking. In the late 1950s, scientists concluded that the evidence indicated overwhelmingly that a
causal link existed between smoking and lung cancer. Did the tobacco industry accept these results? Of course not. Was it because science ‘failed to communicate the value’ of this ”scientific discovery”? I’ll let the readers reach their own conclusion. Besides not all scientists agreed with the study’s results. One notable exception was pipe-smoking and eminent geneticist and statistician, Ronald A. Fisher (1890-1962). Yet in the mid-60s, the link uncovered between smoking and lung cancer was given an official stamp of approval by the
Surgeon General (Luther Terry, 1911–1985). Not only did that not stop the industry from peddling its wares, as we all know, but it actively and vigorously fought to
deny the truth about the dangers of smoking. However, the message, supported by other measures (e.g., no smoking in public areas), did reach the public, which should please the advocate of enhanced science communication. Indeed, in the early 2020s, according the
American Lung Association, around 12% of adults smoke compared to 42% back in the mid-1960s. (But there is, I believe, one ingredient missing in the story that permeates our next example—”politicization.”)
And then there is
climate change. According to Trump it is “
the greatest con job ever perpetrated,” this, ironically, coming from
a man found liable for fraud. Not only is climate science seen as a direct attack on all fossil-fuel-producing and fossil-fuel-dependent industries but it is an assault on a life style that relies heavily on fossil fuels. Since much of the modern way of life has been centered around the automobile, not only has the auto industry had to shoulder the consequences of science’s findings, which have been translated into regulatory measures to mitigate the effects of the industry’s products, but the average citizen has also been impacted (higher gas prices due to taxes; higher prices of car equipped with anti-pollution devices; smog tests to renew the car’s registration; etc.). On this issue, the fossil fuel industry has been found to have “
misled the general public.”
As mentioned in a
previous post,
the Trump regime seems to follow the playbook of earlier authoritarian
rulers. Just like the Stalinist State supported and promoted, contrary to mainstream
science, the theories of
Lysenko (1898-1976), the MAGA State is supporting, along with climate change denial, the MAHA “scientific” agenda. Will a redoubling of science’s communication effort be enough to reverse the trend?
Power struggle. The question is: Is the Trump regime’s opposition to climate science (and other findings of mainstream science) attributable to science’s inability to communicate its conclusions? Before we attempt to answer this question, we will do well to recognize the symbolic aspects of the Trump administration’s policies. They are not simply a boon to the fossil fuel industries, they are meant to devalue the credibility of those who believe in climate change. As the MAGA ideology is enhanced, its counterpart (e.g., climate science) is vilified. MAGA policies confer respectability (or at least, are an attempt to do so) to the fossil-fuel industries and the way of life it supports, just as other administrations promoted the image of “green” industries (and concomitantly, their business interests).
Dialog postponed. When one side proclaims that its conclusions are incontrovertible (climate science) and the other side deems these claims
a “hoax” and a “liberal conspiracy” is communication possible? There are very powerful forces that are working to degrade the status of mainstream science. Although science seeks to project an image of “authority and dispassion” (Mukerji 1989, p. 195), these forces will depict science as just an another interest group with political ambitions. The terrain for dialog is fraught with some major obstacles (hopefully not insurmountable). Are we at a point, like Dante on the threshold of hell, when we would say “lasciate ogni speranza” (forsake all hope)?
______________________________________
Margaret C. Jacob (1992), “Science and Politics in the Late Twentieth Century,” Social Research, Vol. 59, No. 3.
Robert K. Merton (1968), Social Theory and Social Structure, The Free Press, New York
Chandra Mukerji (1989), A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ