March 4, 2025, by Brigitte Nerlich
Science and politics: Some whimsical thoughts
On Monday morning I had a lot of time. I was in hospital getting an infusion of Vedolizumab. With observation etc. that takes about three hours. I scrolled on my phone and read some posts on Bluesky, while, at the same time, reading an old novel on my Kindle – a Lord Peter Wimsey novel.
It was the 3rd of March, the day that the Royal Society here in Britain was holding a meeting to debate what to do about one of its illustrious members, Elon Musk (or rather “a discussion of ‘the principles’ around public pronouncements and behaviours of Fellows”). So, a big science day for me – benefitting from a lot of science – and a big day for science itself which is currently under attack.
I’ll first follow a train of thought triggered by reading a Bluesky post and ask what it means for science to be or not to be political – I don’t have an answer though. I also ask what all this means for science communication. Again, I don’t really have an answer. Then I’ll quote some passages from the novel I was reading regarding truth and evidence, highlighting the troubles we find ourselves in at the moment.
Science and politics – what now?
On Bluesky I chanced upon a post by Jack Stilgoe who said that the current debate about whether science is or is not political reminded him of an earlier debate in 2012 and an article he had then written for The Guardian.
The first paragraph sets the scene: “A piece by Brian Cox and Robin Ince in the New Statesman has excited that corner of the Twittersphere concerned with things scientific. Their argument is that, because science has been twisted and undermined by politicians, there needs to be clearer separation between scientific truths and political values.”
Jack argued, like many do now, that science is inherently political – and it’s a persuasive argument (but then again, everything is political, so what does it mean?). Anyway, I won’t try to fathom this issue here, but I want to quote one more sentence from the article: “Nobody is suggesting, as Cox and Ince fear, that we abandon science.”
How things have changed. People, especially in the United States, are now openly advocating that we abandon, if not abolish, science. What does that mean for the science/politics argument, I wonder? Destroying science is certainly a political act. Standing up for science is certainly a political act. But does that mean that ‘science is political’?
In 2012, I was on the side of Brian Cox and Robin Ince (and Philip Moriarty) arguing that science and politics are two different things. Then I listened to a lot of my friends and colleagues arguing that ‘science is political’ and was almost persuaded by their arguments. Now this issue has become a lot more complex and brutal and I no longer know what to think.
Science communication – what now?
I also wonder what this means for science communication, a topic I tackled in 2012 after the Cox/Ince affair.
In the past, all sorts of people, scientists, professional science communicators, experts and amateurs, and all mixtures in between, engaged in science communication to raise awareness of science, enhance or create enjoyment of science, increase involvement in science, and talk about what scientific discoveries or innovations meant for science and people.
After around 2009 and climategate, scientists and communicators also had to increasingly defend science as an enterprise. This has become more and more urgent but also more difficult now, as the political tide is turning against science. This also means that science communication and health communication and risk communication and climate/weather communication have become problematic now that politicians are abandoning and abolishing science by destroying scientific institutions.
Truth and evidence – what now?
And now we come to the novel I read during the infusion, namely the 1927 detective story Clouds of Witness by Dorothy L. Sayers. I came across a passage that made me sit up and chuckle (sadly).
A solicitor, Mr Murbles, has invited Lord Peter Wimsey and his sister Mary to dinner, and they are waiting for another guest, a barrister, Sir Impey Biggs, to arrive. The solicitor says: “He is engaged in Quangle & Hamper v. Truth, but they expect to be through this morning – in fact, Sir Impey fancied that midday would see the end of it. Brilliant man, Sir Impey. He is defending Truth.”
Sir Impey is defending ‘truth’ against some peddlers of what one would nowadays call alternative medicine. I wonder who’d defend ‘truth’ nowadays? That activity certainly has become political. Truth, facts, knowledge have all become suspect and there is a lot of evidence out there that shows how politicians are undermining trust in institutions engaged in finding truth, facts, and knowledge.
Scientists and science communicators might want to follow in the footsteps of Lord Peter Wimsey: “The best thing we can do,” said Wimsey, “is to look the evidence in the face, however ugly. And I don’t mind admittin’ that some of it’s a positive gargoyle.” Science and science communication, truth and facts, evidence, knowledge and reality are under attack. That is undoubtedly political.
We no longer live in a knowledge and information society. We live in an ignorance and misinformation society.
Image: kindly suggested by @christophstc.bsky.social
No comments yet, fill out a comment to be the first
Leave a Reply