The politicization of science is the manipulation
of science for political gain.
It occurs when government, business, or advocacy
groups use legal or economic pressure to influence
the findings of scientific research or the
way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted.
The politicization of science may also negatively
affect academic and scientific freedom.
Historically, groups have conducted various
campaigns to promote their interests in defiance
of scientific consensus, and in an effort
to manipulate public policy.
On the other hand, policy makers are under
pressure from their electorates to take timely
action regardless of the raging debates and/or
apparent credibility of alternative viewpoints.
Politics cannot be completely divorced from
policy.
== Overview ==
Many factors can act as facets of the politicization
of science.
These can range, for example, from populist
anti-intellectualism and perceived threats
to religious belief to postmodernist subjectivism
and fear for business interests.Politicization
occurs as scientific information is presented
with emphasis on the uncertainty associated
with the scientific evidence.
The emphasis capitalizes on the lack of consensus,
which influences the way the studies are perceived.
Chris Mooney describes how this point is sometimes
intentionally ignored as a part an "Orwellian
tactic."
Organizations and politicians seek to disclaim
all discussion on some issues as 'the more
probable conclusion is still uncertain' as
opposed to 'conclusions are most scientifically
likely' in order to further discredit scientific
studies.
Tactics such as shifting conversation, failing
to acknowledge facts, and capitalizing on
doubt of scientific consensus have been used
to gain more attention for views that have
been undermined by scientific evidence.
"Merchants of Doubt," ideology-based interest
groups that claim expertise on scientific
issues, have run successful "disinformation
campaigns" in which they highlight the inherent
uncertainty of science to cast doubt on scientific
issues such as human-caused climate change,
even though the scientific community has reached
virtual consensus that humans play a role
in climate change.William R. Freudenburg and
colleagues have written about politicization
of science as a rhetorical technique and states
that it is an attempt to shift the burden
of proof in an argument.
He offers the example of cigarette lobbyists
opposing laws that would discourage smoking.
The lobbyists trivialize evidence as uncertain,
emphasizing lack of conclusion.
Freudenberg concludes that politicians and
lobby groups are too often able to make "successful
efforts to argue for full 'scientific certainty'
before a regulation can be said to be 'justified'
and maintain that what is needed is a balanced
approach that carefully considers the risks
of both Type 1 and Type 2 errors in a situation
while noting that scientific conclusions are
always tentative.President of the American
Council on Science and Health Hank Campbell
and microbiologist Alex Berezow have described
"feel-good fallacies" used in politics, where
politicians frame their positions in a way
that makes people feel good about supporting
certain policies even when scientific evidence
shows there is no need to worry or there is
no need for dramatic change on current programs.
They have claimed that progressives have had
these kinds of issues with policies involving
genetically modified foods, vaccination, overpopulation,
use of animals in research, nuclear energy,
and other topics.
== Politicization by advocacy groups ==
A political tactic, sometimes used to delay
the implementation of legislation to control
potentially harmful activities, is the Scientific
Certainty Argumentation Method (SCAM).
In many cases, there is a degree of uncertainty
in scientific findings and this can be exploited
to delay action, perhaps for many years, by
demanding more "certainty" before action is
taken.
=== Global warming ===
Both mainstream climatologists and their critics
have accused each other of politicizing the
science behind climate change.
There is a scientific consensus that global
surface temperatures have increased in recent
decades and that the trend is caused primarily
by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.In
1991, a US corporate coalition including the
National Coal Association, the Western Fuels
Association and Edison Electrical Institute
created a public relations organization called
the "Information Council on the Environment"
(ICE).
ICE launched a $500,000 advertising campaign
to, in ICE's own words, "reposition global
warming as theory (not fact)."
Critics of industry groups have charged that
the claims about a global warming controversy
are part of a deliberate effort to reduce
the impact any international treaty, such
as the Kyoto Protocol, might have on their
business interests.In June 2005, John Vidal,
environment editor of The Guardian, asserted
the existence of US State Department papers
showing that the Bush administration thanked
Exxon executives for the company's "active
involvement" in helping to determine climate
change policy, including the US stance on
Kyoto.
Input from the industry advocacy group Global
Climate Coalition was also a factor.In 2006,
Guardian columnist George Monbiot reported
that according to data found in official Exxon
documents, 124 organizations have taken money
from ExxonMobil or worked closely with those
that have, and that "These organizations take
a consistent line on climate change: that
the science is contradictory, the scientists
are split, environmentalists are charlatans,
liars or lunatics, and if governments took
action to prevent global warming, they would
be endangering the global economy for no good
reason.
The findings these organisations dislike are
labelled 'junk science'.
The findings they welcome are labelled 'sound
science'."
The "selective use of data", cherry picking,
is identified as a notable form of scientific
abuse by the Pacific Institute, an organization
created to provide independent research and
policy analysis on issues at the intersection
of development, environment, and security.
=== Intelligent design ===
The intelligent design movement associated
with the Discovery Institute, attempts to
"defeat [the] materialist world view" represented
by the theory of evolution in favor of "a
science consonant with Christian and theistic
convictions".
The Discovery Institute portrays evolution
as a "theory in crisis" with scientists criticizing
evolution and that "fairness" and "equal time"
requires educating students about "the controversy."
One of the most reliable and empirically tested
theories in science is that all forms of life
on Earth are related by common descent with
modification.
Accordingly, any controversial aspects of
evolution are a matter of religion and politics,
not science.
The 2005 ruling in the Dover trial, Kitzmiller
v. Dover Area School District, where the claims
of intelligent design proponents were considered
by a United States federal court concluded
that intelligent design is not science, that
it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist,
and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded
that the school district's promotion of it
therefore violated the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.In
2006 the scientific journal Science published
survey finding that the U.S. ranks second
from last in acceptance of the theory of evolution
among thirty-four developed countries surveyed.
The article said: "The
acceptance of evolution is lower in the United
States than in Japan or Europe, largely because
of
widespread fundamentalism and the politicization
of science in the United States."
=== Tobacco and cancer ===
By the mid-1950s there was a scientific consensus
that smoking promotes lung cancer, but the
tobacco industry fought the findings, both
in the public eye and within the scientific
community.
Tobacco companies funded think tanks and lobbying
groups, started health reassurance campaigns,
ran advertisements in medical journals, and
researched alternate explanations for lung
cancer, such as pollution, asbestos and even
pet birds.
Denying the case against tobacco was "closed,"
they called for more research as a tactic
to delay regulation.
John Horgan, notes a rhetoric tactic that
has been used by tobacco companies.
It is summarized in a line that appeared in
a confidential memo from a tobacco company,
in 1969, when they sought to cast doubt on
evidence that supports smoking causes cancer.
It read, "Doubt is our product since it is
the best means of competing with the 'body
of fact' that exists in the mind of the general
public.
It is also the means of establishing a controversy."
=== Eugenics ===
Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler was well known
for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain
a "pure" German race through a series of programs
that ran under the banner of Racial Hygiene.
The Nazis manipulated scientific research
in Germany, by forcing some scholars to emigrate,
and by allocating funding for research based
on ideological rather than scientific merit.In
the early 20th century, Eugenics enjoyed substantial
international support, from leading politicians
and scientists.
The First International Congress of Eugenics
in 1912 was supported by many prominent persons,
including: its president Leonard Darwin, the
son of Charles Darwin; honorary vice-president
Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the
Admiralty and future Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom; Auguste Forel, famous Swiss
pathologist; Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor
of the telephone; among other prominent people.The
level of support for Eugenics research by
the Nazis prompted an American Eugenics advocate
to seek an expansion of the American program,
with the complaint that "the Germans are beating
us at our own game".There was a strong connection
between American and Nazi Eugenics research.
Nazis based their Eugenics program on the
United States' programs of forced sterilization,
especially on the eugenics laws that had been
enacted in California.
== Government politicization ==
=== Soviet Union ===
In the Soviet Union, scientific research was
under strict political control.
A number of research areas were declared "bourgeois
pseudoscience" and forbidden.
This has led to significant setbacks for the
Soviet science, notably in biology due to
ban on genetics (see "Lysenkoism") and in
computer science, which drastically influenced
the Soviet economy and technology.
=== United States ===
The General Social Survey (GSS) of 1974 recorded
that conservatives had the highest rates of
trust in science between the three major political
demographics; conservatives, liberals, and
moderates.
This study was repeated annually between 1972
through 1994, and biannually from 1994 until
2010.
In 2010 when the same study was repeated,
conservatives trust rates had decreased from
49% to 38%, moderates from 45% to 40%, and
liberals staying relatively stable, rising
slightly from 48% to 50%.The study by Gordon
Gauchat, which investigates time trends in
the public trust of science in the United
States, suggests that the increase of distrust
of conservatives can be attributed to the
two cultural shifts.
The first was during the post-Reagan era when
the New Right emerged, and the second during
the G.W. Bush era when the NR intensified
and conservatives commenced the “war on
science”.
Barack Obama and other politicians, since
Bush’s Presidency, have expressed their
concerns with the politicization of science
in both the public and government sphere.
In 2011, during his State of the Union speech,
Obama discussed his dissatisfaction of the
relationships between organized science, private
economic interests, and the government.
The data collected in this study reveals the
Public Trust in Science, the Public Confidence
in Science, and the Predicted Probabilities
between Liberals and Conservatives.
The survey examines variables including gender,
ethnicity, level of education, income, religion,
age, political party preference, political
demographics, and changes over time.
Conclusively, the empirical findings of this
study have shown that that although the distrust
of conservatives has increased over time,
the overall public trust in science has not
changed since the 1970s.
==== George W. Bush administration ====
In 2004, The Denver Post reported that the
George W. Bush administration "has installed
more than 100 top officials who were once
lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the
industries they oversee."
At least 20 of these former industry advocates
helped their agencies write, shape or push
for policy shifts that benefit their former
industries.
"They knew which changes to make because they
had pushed for them as industry advocates."
Also in 2004, the scientific advocacy group
Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report,
Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation
into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science
which charged the following: A growing number
of scientists, policy makers, and technical
specialists both inside and outside the government
allege that the current Bush administration
has suppressed or distorted the scientific
analyses of federal agencies to bring these
results in line with administration policy.
In addition, these experts contend that irregularities
in the appointment of scientific advisors
and advisory panels are threatening to upset
the legally mandated balance of these bodies.
A petition, signed on February 18, 2004, by
more than 9,000 scientists, including 49 Nobel
laureates and 63 National Medal of Science
recipients, followed the report.
The petition stated: When scientific knowledge
has been found to be in conflict with its
political goals, the administration has often
manipulated the process through which science
enters into its decisions.
This has been done by placing people who are
professionally unqualified or who have clear
conflicts of interest in official posts and
on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding
existing advisory committees; by censoring
and suppressing reports by the government’s
own scientists; and by simply not seeking
independent scientific advice.
Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged
in such practices, but not so systematically
nor on so wide a front.
Furthermore, in advocating policies that are
not scientifically sound, the administration
has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge
and misled the public about the implications
of its policies.
The same year, Francesca Grifo, executive
director of the Union of Concerned Scientists'
Scientific Integrity Program, stated "We have
reports that stay in draft form and don't
get out to the public.
We have reports that are changed.
We have reports that are ignored and overwritten."In
response to criticisms, President Bush in
2006 unveiled a campaign in his State of the
Union Address to promote scientific research
and education to ensure American competitiveness
in the world, vowing to "double the federal
commitment to the most critical basic research
programs in the physical sciences over the
next 10 years."
===== Surgeon General =====
Richard Carmona, the first surgeon general
appointed by President George W. Bush, publicly
accused the administration in July 2007 of
political interference and muzzling him on
key issues like embryonic stem cell research."Anything
that doesn't fit into the political appointees'
ideological, theological or political agenda
is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried,"
Carmona testified.Although he did not make
personal accusations, the Washington Post
reported on July 29 that the official who
blocked at least one of Carmona's reports
was William R. Steiger.
===== Food and Drug Administration =====
In July 2006 the Union of Concerned Scientists
(UCS) released survey results that demonstrate
pervasive political influence of science at
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Of the 997 FDA scientists who responded to
the survey, nearly one fifth (18 percent)
said that they "have been asked, for non-scientific
reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter
technical information or their conclusions
in a FDA scientific document."
This is the third survey Union of Concerned
Scientists has conducted to examine inappropriate
interference with science at federal agencies.
The Department of Health and Human Services
also conducted a survey addressing the same
topic which generated similar findings.
According to USA Today, a survey of Food and
Drug Administration scientists by Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility and the Union
of Concerned Scientists found that many scientists
have been pressured to approve or reject new
drugs despite their scientific findings concerns.
In July 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists
released survey results that they said "demonstrate
pervasive political influence of science"
at the Food and Drug Administration.
===== United States Department of the Interior
=====
On May 1, 2007, deputy assistant secretary
at the United States Department of the Interior
Julie MacDonald resigned after the Interior
Department Inspector General, Honorable Earl
E. Devaney, reported that MacDonald broke
federal rules by giving non-public, internal
government documents to oil industry and property
rights groups, and manipulated scientific
findings to favor Bush policy goals and assist
land developers.
On November 29, 2007, another report by Devaney
found that MacDonald could have also benefitted
financially from a decision she was involved
with to remove the Sacramento splittail fish
from the federal endangered species list.
MacDonald's conduct violated the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703,
Use of nonpublic information, and 5 C.F.R.
§ 2635.101, Basic obligation of public service.
MacDonald resigned a week before a House congressional
oversight committee was to hold a hearing
on accusations that she had "violated the
Endangered Species Act, censored science and
mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service."
===== 
Climate Change =====
In December 2007, the Christian Science Monitor
reported that at least since 2003, and especially
after Hurricane Katrina, the George W. Bush
administration broadly attempted to control
which climate scientists could speak with
reporters, as well as edited scientists' congressional
testimony on climate science and key legal
opinions.
Those who have studied organizations that
set up to delay action and manufacture uncertainty
about the well-established scientific consensus
have divided their tactics into three steps:
first, deny that there is a problem, second,
make the case that there are benefits involved,
and, third, insist that there is nothing that
can be done.In a study, "The legitimacy of
environmental scientists in the public sphere"
by Gordon Gauchat, Timothy O’Brien, and
Oriol Mirosa, the researchers conclude that
attitudes about environmental scientists as
policy advisers are highly politicized.
Their results demonstrate that, to be perceived
by the public as a reputable policy advisor,
the public's perception of their integrity
and understanding weigh more strongly than
their agreement with scientific consensus.
===== Waxman report =====
In August 2003, United States, Democratic
Congressman Henry A. Waxman and the staff
of the Government Reform Committee released
a report concluding that the administration
of George W. Bush had politicized science
and sex education.
The report accuses the administration of modifying
performance measures for abstinence-based
programs to make them look more effective.
The report also found that the Bush administration
had appointed Dr. Joseph McIlhaney, a prominent
advocate of abstinence-only program, to the
Advisory Committee to the director of the
Centers for Disease Control.
According to the report, information about
comprehensive sex education was removed from
the CDC's website.Other issues considered
for removal included agricultural pollution,
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and breast
cancer; the report found that a National Cancer
Institute website has been changed to reflect
the administration view that there may be
a risk of breast cancer associated with abortions.
The website was updated after protests and
now holds that no such risk has been found
in recent, well-designed studies.
===== Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis
=====
The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis is the
belief that induced abortions increase the
risk of developing breast cancer.
This belief is in contrast to the scientific
consensus that there is no evidence suggesting
that abortions can cause breast cancer.
Despite the scientific community rejecting
the hypothesis, many pro-life advocates continue
to argue that a link between abortions and
breast cancer exists, in an effort to influence
public policy and opinion to further restrict
abortions and discourage women from having
abortions.
While historically a controversial hypothesis,
the debate now is almost entirely political
rather than scientific.The most notable example
of the politicization of this topic was the
modification of the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) fact sheet by the George W. Bush administration
from concluding no link to a more ambiguous
assessment regarding the abortion-breast cancer
hypothesis, despite the NCI's scientifically-based
assessment to the contrary.
===== United States House Science Subcommittee
on Oversight =====
In January 2007, the U.S. House Committee
on Science, Space and Technology announced
the formation of a new subcommittee, the Science
Subcommittee on Oversight, which handles investigative
and oversight activities on matters covering
the committee's entire jurisdiction.
The subcommittee has authority to look into
a whole range of important issues, particularly
those concerning manipulation of scientific
data at Federal agencies.
In an interview, subcommittee chairman Rep.
Brad Miller pledged to investigate scientific
integrity concerns under the Bush Administration.
Miller noted that there were multiple reports
in the media of the Bush Administration's
manipulation of science to advance his political
agenda, corrupt advisory panels, and minimize
scientific research with federal funds.
Miller, as part of the House Committee of
Science and Technology, collected evidence
of interference with scientific integrity
by Bush's political appointees.
==== Donald Trump administration ====
The issue of politicized science surfaced
again during the 2016 United States presidential
campaign by then Republican candidate Donald
Trump.
Trump stated his intention to strip NASA's
Earth Science division of its funding, a move
that The Guardian writes "would mean the elimination
of NASA's world-renowned research into temperature,
ice, clouds and other climate phenomena".
==== Dedications and holidays ====
On January 22, 2013, New Jersey Representative
Rush D. Holt, Jr., a Quaker Christian and
nuclear physicist, introduced a resolution
to the United States Congress designating
February 12, 2013 (Charles Darwin's 204th
birthday) as "Darwin Day" in order to recognize
"the importance of sciences in the betterment
of humanity".
== Scholarly studies of the politics of science
==
The politicization of science is a subset
of a broader topic, the politics of science,
which has been studied by scholars in a variety
of fields, including most notably Science
and Technology Studies; history of science;
political science; and the sociology of science,
knowledge, and technology.
Increasingly in recent decades, these fields
have examined the process through which science
and technology are shaped.
Some of the scholarly work in this area is
reviewed in The Handbook of Science & Technology
Studies (1995, 2008), a collection of literature
reviews published by the Society for Social
Studies of Science.
There is an annual award for books relevant
to the politics of science given by the Society
for Social Studies of Science called the Rachel
Carson Prize.
== See also
