The Anti-Science Tradition in America
I wrote this in response to a question posed in a Facebook group. The question was, “Is the anti-science sentiment of the Trump administration new to America?” The answer, alas, is no.
Anti-science sentiment an old problem, beginning with the Scopes Trial in 1925 (anti-evolution). It was muted during the 1930s, because of the discovery of penicillin (and, later, other drugs), and during WWII and immediately after because of the contributions of science and technology to national defense, something which continued to be true throughout the Cold War. We were also enamored by the race to land a man on the moon.
(By the way, May 5th was the anniversary of the arrest of John Scopes, the Tennessee teacher who agreed to be arrested so the ACLU could argue against the Tennessee law in court.)
But the truce with science was short-lived. The chemical industry, with an eye on its bottom line, attacked Rachel Carson after she published “Silent Spring” in 1962, and attacks escalated (cigarette manufacturers, the oil and gas industry) throughout the 1960s and beyond, all by corporations worried about profits.
Conservative evangelicals ramped-up attacks on evolution, especially in the late 1990s and 2000s, and the anti-vax movement began around the same time.
Except for Nixon, most Republican administrations have been anti-science to some degree, because they reject environmental controls, and many had doubts about climate change.
Not all anti-science sentiment is on the right, however. The belief in astrology is found on both the left and the right, as are anti-vaxxers. A lot of the opposition to GMOs is from the left, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of science (and agricultural history, for that matter). I’m not saying, “all GMOs are good,” but I am saying that some of the opposition is based, at a minimum, on a misunderstanding of science.
Still, the scope and intensity of anti-science sentiment is unique to Trump’s administration. As the article points out, though, only about a quarter of Americans are anti-science; it seems like more than that because they’re vocal (the internet, the result of science and technology, is their friend) and politicians use them for their own ends.
We do have quite a strong tradition, beginning with two founders, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush, of celebrating science. We even have near contemporary scientists as pop heroes — Carl Sagan and the British scientist Stephen Hawking come to mind — so it’s not all doom and gloom.
But as more and more deaths are recorded from the coronavirus outbreak, I suspect there will be two reactions: a demand for more evidence-based tools (including vaccination) and a retreat, by some, into non-evidence-based, religious or quasi-religious alternatives. (As a side note, the Nazis had a strong mystical element in their propaganda that was effectively anti-science, in the sense of being non-evidenced based).
Which side wins will depend, I think, on who wins the 2020 elections, because if Trump wins, he won’t support science. Deaths will multiply, and desperate people will seek “alternative solutions” that aren’t solutions at all. The scientific enterprise won’t flourish because of the active resistance at the highest levels of government; not only will funding be in short supply, scientists themselves may become victims of groups frightened by the virus. Many people already believe the virus was lab-created (by the Chinese, by the CIA, by … who knows), so “responsibility” for the deaths can easily be attributed to science and scientists. Political leaders may encourage the attacks to bolster their control.
This possibility brings to mind a famous science fiction short story written by Isaac Asimov, Nightfall, in which cultists attack a scientist. It was voted the best science fiction story of all time, and I think it describes what could be — not necessarily what will be — one of our possible futures.
