Is this blog political?

Of course. Read the paragraph at the top. Public health is fundamentally political -- well, I'm not sure that's exactly the right word, but it's very much about public policy, which is a primary determinant of public health. Much of what public health researchers do is to assess the impact of policies on health. Furthermore, all categories of public policy affect public health, not just health care policy or environmental regulations. Transportation, land use management, taxation, education, law enforcement -- you name it. We say "health in all policies," and it is our job, as scientists, to elucidate those relationships.

 

Scientific findings in many fields have policy implications. Obviously, the finding that human activity is changing the climate, and the associated effects, imply that we probably ought to do something about it. Tobacco causes cancer. Sugary drinks cause obesity and diabetes. These are scientific findings that have political implications, as do many others. 

Sure, in deciding on exactly what policies are appropriate, values come in to it. Is it worth it to spend X to achieve Y? People might disagree, and that will be worked out in the political process. But "politicization" of science happens when people deny legitimate scientific findings because they don't conform to preconceived ideology. I'm not "politicizing" science when I say that Republican politicians who deny the safety and effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines are liars or dupes, who are killing people. That's just the cold truth. They are politicizing science, specifically by denying it. But opposite world has become the regular, favored rhetorical strategy of the right.

Finally, scientists are citizens. We have the same right as everybody else to advocate for our own beliefs. There is no reason why a scientist can't be politically active, as long as their activism doesn't lead them to distort their scientific conclusions. Science has political implications. Get used to it.