There has been no shortage of examples in recent years of politicians attacking science to advance their personal agendas. They range from Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s suppression of data on COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes to California officials. Improper approval of oil drilling permits The lack of proper water quality testing has made it the subject of recent lawsuits. But it’s surprising that the self-serving attacks on science that have flourished during the pandemic (and have shown little sign of receding since), especially in right-wing media, have extended from the Capitol to state capitals near and far. It’s not something you should do. . If it works in Washington, D.C., practitioners have to wonder why it doesn’t work in Albany, Sacramento, or Annapolis.
new report The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University and the Union of Concerned Scientists are raising this issue. The authors document case after case of manipulation and politicization. In some cases, data suppression may occur. Elected officials may also intimidate or censor scientists or replace real research with pseudoscientific junk to reach desired conclusions.see how to do it Anthony S. FauciThe retired virologist and former White House pandemic chief of staff has come under attack from the far right — so badly that he still has a security detail assigned to him. It’s important to have a public debate about the merits of scientific research and to say, as Republican presidential candidate and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis did last year, “Someone should grab that little elf and throw him across the Potomac River.” ” is another thing.
Of course, states can’t do anything about ignorant politicians spewing hate speech, but they can pass laws to protect science and scientists. Among the recommendations in the Brennan Center report are establishing minimum standards for scientific integrity and requiring states to use the “best available” science when making decisions. One example of this is to make it mandatory. However, only two states (Wisconsin and California) have adopted the former, and only 22 states have adopted the latter. Maryland is not among them. Given that there are still two months until the next Maryland General Assembly, there appears to be plenty of time to propose just such legislation. This is not to suggest that the Old Line states, home to leading research institutions such as the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University, are big culprits, but in times of instability such as these protection seems prudent.
There are many avenues to explore. Part of that should include protecting experts like Dr. Fauci from threats. The scientific advisory committee could also set some minimum standards, especially on hot-button issues such as immunizations, mental health, and health equity. Some of the reforms recommended in the report will likely garner support from Democrats and Republicans alike. These include protecting whistleblowers from retaliation, strengthening ethical standards, and requiring public access to publicly funded research.
It may be tempting to blame Donald Trump for much of the anti-science rhetoric that permeates public life, but this was a problem even before he entered the political scene. The AIDS epidemic of the 1980s also caused much tension between scientists and politicians. If anything, the spread of the coronavirus has only exacerbated long-standing animosities, whose origins may be traced back to debates over the teaching of human evolution in schools nearly a century ago.
The public needs to know that whether in Maryland or elsewhere, the people whose job it is to set health, safety, and environmental standards (to name just three important areas) are using real, not fake science. You should be able to trust that you’re using science.
The Baltimore Sun’s editorial staff provides opinion and analysis on news and issues relevant to our readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.
