People like to take their science straight, without any sense of the social, historical, or cultural. We treat science like a sterile lab or protected artifact, a static object that exists in a vacuum. There is a fundamentally false division within our broader society between the political and the scientific. As a public, we expect and attribute an inherent technocratic objectivity to the scientist, who is meant to stand as a figure of solemn truth, whereas from the politician we require only passion and vigor. In the American mind, never the twain shall meet. In this way, science has fallen victim to the binary narrative that plagues American politics. This narrative has painted the Republican party as the party of faith and the Democratic party as the party of reason. It has created media story lines in which politicians act as dramatic foils to each other; the fiery, unpracticed Donald Trump versus the cold, calculated Hillary Clinton. However, the distancing of the scientific from the political has a lengthy history.
That scientists have long felt the need to remove themselves from politics should come as no surprise. When scientist’s views fly in the face of political beliefs, they often face backlash, stigma, and even life-threatening danger from higher powers and the public at large. Recall the fate of Galileo, who, after confirming the heliocentric system first espoused by Copernicus, soon found himself the enemy of the Catholic Church. After a show-trial at the hands of the Inquisition, Galileo was imprisoned in his own home where he died just under a decade later. Power has always feared science. Power is built on the foundation that it holds the ultimate and unadulterated truth, a truth unquestionable in nature. Any subversion of this truth is necessarily threatening to those that hold the reins of power.
As a more modern example, Michael Mann, a major climate scientist, faced a relentless crusade by the fossil fuel industry to discredit his science through a series of personal attacks. Mann’s name was caught up in a major incident involving the hacking of the emails between Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and other scientists. Climate denialists seized on the inconsequential correspondence, deeming it evidence of a conspiracy between climate scientists to convince the public of climate change. For years, fossil fuel-funded think tanks used this incident as fodder to launch a defamation campaign against Mann and to attempt to remove him from his teaching post. Though his research was upheld, Mann almost lost his university position and the respect of his peers. Looking at history, it is no wonder that scientists often feel that the safest option is to remain out of the realm of politics, locked safe in the comfortable world of academia.
However, there is an uncalculated risk when scientists refuse to participate in politics. Without scientists there to speak for their research, politicians have no problem in interpreting scientific findings to suit their own needs. Take as an example the disastrous results of when Darwin’s Theory of Evolution social re-appropriation. Social Darwinism, and all of its pseudo-scientific offspring, were systematically used to promote eugenics, race-based superiority, and the destruction of social policies. Richard Dawkins seminal scientific thesis “The Selfish Gene”, in which he argues for a gene-centered view of evolution in which genes attempt to pass themselves on as much as possible, was used in the 1990s by Wall Street tycoons to justify the increase of profits at all costs. The Enron Scandal, in which the company was revealed to be hiding billions of dollars in debt from shareholders, was subsequently linked to its COO Jeff Skilling’s favorite book. You guessed it, The Selfish Gene. Academic distance is a helpful security blanket in instances like these. Withdrawing from the public sphere allows Scientists to absolve themselves of any responsibility for how their findings are interpreted and applied. It allows them to bury their heads in the sand and avoid the repercussions that occur when the political meets the scientific without the mediation of knowledgeable interpreters.
Science can no longer remain separate from politics. Today, science and with it the fate of the world, are at risk and the chance to save them lies in the ability of scientists to effectively communicate their ideas to the public. The phrase “scientific communication” has become a buzzword spoken a lot and rarely acted upon in the sustainability departments of major universities, or in the marketing department of green-tech companies. But inside this slightly empty phrase lies a kernel of truth. The disconnect between the certainty of the scientific community in the link between climate change and anthropogenic activities (around 95%) and the amount of the American Public that concur (53%) is unacceptable. This gap exists because fossil fuel companies have succeeded where science has failed, in convincing everyday Americans, people who want to do the right thing but who don’t have the time to interpret pages of scientific research.
It can be easy to dismiss this, to say that people should be able interpret the data by themselves without simplification, without “communication.” The scientific premise that “the data speaks for itself” is proven woefully false by the large percentage of Americans who remain unconvinced about the anthropogenic origins of climate change. This percentage translates into lack of political inertia, it translates into lack of votes for candidates that support institutions like NASA, the EPA and regulations like the Clean Air Act. It translates into lack of sales of and investment in renewable energy technologies. Now that data speaks for itself.
Scientists must climb out of their ivory tower. It is not enough to avoid complicity or uncertainty by maintaining a safe distance from the messy scene of politics. This distance may have saved them from personal attacks, but it has endangered our planet. Actions like the March for Science and the Climate March may seem trivial, but united fronts present a powerful message, a show of strength, of power, of passion. They wed political expression with scientific facts and help to ease the division in the eyes of many Americans. We need more scientists running for public office. We need more scientist political pundits. We need more Bill Nye’s and Neil deGrasse Tyson’s. We need more people willing to leave their labs, step into the muck of politics, and get a little messy.