Mobilization for Truth, or Survival?

Scott Frickel, of my own university, and Fernando Tormos-Aponte of the University of Pittsburgh, have recently reviewed  studies of what they call "science activism" and find that it is "surging," which they refer to as a "culture shift" among scientists. They write:

Science activism has long been considered taboo, as many in the field fear that politicizing science undermines its objectivity. Even so, scientist-activists have still managed to shape the U.S. political landscape throughout history. Over the past century, for example, scientists have protested the atomic bomb, pesticides, wars in Southeast Asia, genetic engineering and the federal response to the AIDS epidemic.

 

I find their definition of this phenomenon imprecise; they're conflating at least two different phenomena, although there is overlap between them. One reason we're seeing more public engagement by scientists is precisely the politicization of science, or more precisely the politicization of pseudo-science, with politicians and entire political parties and movements denying firmly established scientific conclusions. Denial of evolution and climate science is of course nothing knew, but the resurgence of Christian fundamentalism and Biblical literalism, on the one hand; and the growing urgency of climate change have provoked more and more scientists to enter the public sphere. The preposterous disinformation about Covid-19, and vaccination, and other lunacy have essentially placed an obligation on biomedical and public health scientists to respond -- it's part of their job. None of this, by any stretch, could be said to undermine the "objectivity" of science. On the contrary, it serves to affirm it.

It is a somewhat different matter, however, to interpret scientific conclusions to advocate for public policy in areas in which it is not that one side or another outright denies scientific findings, but rather that differing values, goals or causal arguments lead to differing prescriptions. Protesting police violence, or anti LGBTQ legislation, or for that matter the historical examples they cite such as the war in Southeast Asia, are a somewhat different matter. Science can inform consideration of these problems, and scientific conclusions might predispose people to take one side or another, but science can't settle them. It can perhaps debunk some assumptions underlying some people's views, such as sexual orientation being a choice or biological race being a meaningful category. However, that doesn't necessarily settle the questions for everyone. It does reveal their true motivation, which may for example be a defense of privilege or established social order.

 

Another example they cite, opposing genetic engineering, probably belongs to a third category, come to think of it. Actually one of my own mentors, Sheldon Krimsky, was a leading activist in that area, but I think he had it wrong. There wasn't a definite scientific reason to want to restrict genetic modification, it was more a matter of how to balance possible rewards against uncertain risks, or what the social priorities should be for investment in scientific research. That is the sort of argument we are having now about so-called Artificial Intelligence. Actually I think Shelly (who is deceased) was unduly alarmist about genetic engineering, but I have the benefit of considerable hindsight on that question. I'm not sure what to think about AI at this time. It is certainly appropriate for scientists who have relevant expertise to get involved in such discussions, but on the other hand experts can be very wrong about that sort of question.

In any case, the idea that political and social activism by scientists undermines the objectivity of science, in any of these categories, is nonsensical. Scientists need to be activists, whether its on behalf of correct public understanding of reality, or what they understand to be justice and the public interest. And yes, they do tend to be liberal. There's a very good reason for that, as Stephen Colbert stated plainly. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.