Does it bother you to know that nearly one in three Republicans and GOP independents believe vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent? Or that only one in three Americans believe that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are the main cause of global climate change?
Anti-science sentiment has permeated social development in the US, often with profound consequences. Creationism, which contradicts the existing understanding of evolution, threatens scientific literacy and destroys global social competition. Disinformation about vaccine safety spreads fear and doubt, causing unnecessary deaths from preventable diseases. Widespread denial of climate science hinders national development of public policies to reduce carbon emissions and prepare for future climate impacts.
Trust in scientific expertise has been declining since the pandemic. As the second Trump administration takes office this month, an emerging zeitgeist threatens to derail progress on climate change and other key policy areas. It can also encourage a shift towards autocracy.
Periods of hostile skepticism throughout American history have characterized the public’s respect for science, but science was at the height of the nation’s birth. Enlightenment scholars such as John Locke and David Hume, pioneers of power and rationality, strongly influenced America’s founding fathers. To “promote the Advancement of Science and the Good Arts,” the U.S. Constitution mandated the creation of the Patent Office. The first head of the patent office, Thomas Jefferson, was a polymath who created experiments with hybrid crops and farming methods.
But it was also a time of witch trials, deep-rooted superstitions and traditional remedies, such as bloodletting and treating syphilis with mercury. The practice of vaccination was called barbaric and irreligious in the early 18th century.
In the 19th century, advances in agriculture, transportation, and communications strengthened Americans’ faith in science. The development of railroads led to westward expansion, and the telegraph connected distant cities for the first time. Thomas Edison’s electric light bulb lit up homes and cities, and Charles Goodyear’s burned rubber revolutionized manufacturing. In 1846, a Boston dentist first used ether as an anesthetic.
As the influence of science grew, it undoubtedly interfered with deeply held beliefs. When Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution arrived shortly before the Civil War, its challenge to accepted beliefs about human creation was met with fury. Protestant evangelicals called it “a threat to biblical truths and public morals,” and the Anti-Evolution League of America was active in several states. The issue came to a head in 1925 when school teacher John Scopes was accused of violating a Tennessee law that prohibited the teaching of evolution.
Opposition to Darwinism stemmed from religious opposition, but American self-interest and suspicion of authority fueled the debate. Those who prided themselves on independent thinking “did their own research” and viewed the scientific community with skepticism. The spread of pseudoscience – such as eugenics and orgone energy – continued to erode public respect for the rigor and credibility of true scientific research.
In Boston, where I live, the smallpox vaccination mandated by the state government during the 1901-1903 epidemic was met with strong opposition from the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League. A challenge to a law allowing cities to require vaccination failed in the United States Supreme Court.
In the 20th century, important advances helped restore people’s faith in the power of science and innovation. These milestones included the development of nuclear power, the polio vaccine, antibiotics, the Green Revolution in agriculture, the space program, semiconductors and computers, and mapping the human genome. .
The decades after World War II saw a growing confidence in science as society benefited from the advances it produced. But in the 21st century, respect for scientific knowledge has also declined.
An October 2023 poll said that only 47% of Republicans and Republican-leaning Americans believe that science has a positive impact on society. The scientific community is now bracing for potential upheaval as the new administration prepares to take office.
For example, the election of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to raise the question of how the government will respond to another viral outbreak like COVID-19. Kennedy has been a staunch opponent of vaccinating children against infectious diseases for more than 20 years, despite his claims that he is “not anti-vaccination.” He has peddled many conspiracy theories, including the story that the COVID-19 virus was created to save Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.
Anti-vaccination campaigns have serious real-world consequences. Kennedy visited the island of Samoa in 2019, where a measles epidemic ended up killing many children who were forced to refuse vaccination. Officials said anti-vaccination activists took their cues from Kennedy.
Scientific repression is in the toolbox of autocrats.
The outlook for climate science remains grim. Climate reporter Emily Atkin filed a lawsuit against Trump’s cabinet nominees, nearly all of whom deny the science of climate change or downplay the dangers of global warming. A few have deep ties to the fossil fuel industry.
Significantly, The Wall Street Journal quotes Chris Wright, the embattled CEO and Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Energy, as saying that climate change could bring “perhaps as many positive changes as there are negative changes.” bad.” Wright is unlikely to accept the scientific consensus on climate change or prioritize renewable energy and carbon reduction efforts.
Scientific repression is in the toolbox of autocrats. In 2019, Viktor Orbán reorganized the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, bringing its 15 institutes under direct government control despite strong protests in Hungary and other European countries. In the United States, the Brennan Center for Justice notes that state governments have repeatedly dismissed, altered or suppressed sound scientific research that contradicts their policy agendas.
In The New York Times, M. Gessen writes, “The denial of true knowledge is the priority and the work of a totalitarian regime.” Protest leaders prefer to associate themselves with non-professionals, looking down on people with credentials who oppose political agendas. In “1984” by George Orwell, one of the slogans of the ruling party is “Ignorance is Power,” which emphasizes the idea that controlling the awareness of the truth makes society easier.
Science needs skepticism—it’s part of the scientific process. But doubt is not the same as outright denial. The public must insist on evidence-based policy and resist those who exclude the issues out of self-interest. Only then can science guide us to achieve every good.
Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Instagram. And sign up for our weekly newsletter.
#Public #trust #science #declining #realworld #consequences
