The reality is that “science” has been politicized and weaponized. “Trust the science” was a mantra we all heard in 2020. But what this really meant was to trust the “experts,” who pushed policies such as mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and school closures despite questionable evidence for their prescriptions. But still, these experts nevertheless silenced, smeared, and canceled dissenting voices. Post-pandemic, there was even a doctor who withheld the results of her study because it did not match her preconceived ideas, and she feared her results could be used to counter ideas.
WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE MINERALS IN THE US-UKRAINE DEAL
The pandemic also heightened skepticism for the symbiotic relationship among politicians, the government, and corporate interests such as “Big Pharma,” whereby the government funds drug development and the companies, in turn, donate to politicians. Similarly, with environmental policy, there has been a long-standing view that research funded by corporate interests, such as oil companies, could be summarily dismissed as tainted without addressing the substance.
Yet, the same people refuse to acknowledge a similar taint from science funded or performed by special interest nongovernmental organizations, whose raison d’etre is to advance particular environmental policies. While money may be a corruptor of men and science, it is far from the only one. Not only have environmental special interest groups used questionable “science” to push unpopular policies — EV mandates, gas stove bans — but they have also sent many alumni into the Biden administration in positions with the power to enact them.
This is not the science we were taught in high school and college. The concepts of questioning, hypothesis, experimentation, observation, recording, analysis, and reporting guided science. Skepticism was encouraged. Transparency ruled, as critics were supplied with data to test results and conclusions. Duplication of results from multiple sources was key to verifying conclusions.
But, President Donald Trump and his new administration have an opportunity to restore a scientific process that encourages skepticism within the federal government.
When the Biden administration came into office, it spouted flowery rhetoric about the role of science in policymaking. In its first days, it issued a memorandum on scientific integrity, espousing such sentiments as, “When scientific or technological information is considered in policy decisions, it should be subjected to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where feasible and appropriate.” But it didn’t take long for the administration to undermine that effort. From its very first days, administration officials urged social media outlets to censor dissenting views on COVID-19 policies, even from prominent medical and scientific experts.
Within months, the administration issued another memorandum. This one stated an intention to strengthen the relationship between the U.S. government and “tribal nations” by recognizing “Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge … as one of the many important bodies of knowledge that contributes to…” among other things, “scientific” achievements. The Biden administration defined this as “a body of observations, oral and written knowledge, practices, and beliefs that promote environmental sustainability and responsible stewardship of natural resources through relationships between humans and environmental systems.”
The administration took this concept one step further when the Office of Science and Technology Policy issued guidance on indigenous knowledge that condemned “Western science” for having been “used as a tool to oppress Tribal Nations and Indigenous Peoples.”
The guidance, eschewing core tenets of science, also declared, “Agencies do not need to judge, validate, or evaluate Indigenous Knowledge using other forms of knowledge.”
Indigenous knowledge may have some value, and including the observations and concerns of people affected by federal policies certainly has a place in policymaking. But it is not science, and categorizing it as such weakens and demeans science itself.
THUNE SQUEEZES DEMOCRATS WITH TRANSGENDER ATHLETE SENATE VOTE
The Trump administration can reverse all of this madness.
For “science” to regain the meaning it used to have, the scientific community must go back to the basics. It must focus on data, evidence, and the scientific method. And for government science to be trusted by the people again, it must be transparent. If the Trump administration reforms scientific integrity policies to meet these simple principles, it will go a long way toward helping restore the public’s trust in both science and government.
Michael Chamberlain is the director of Protect the Public’s Trust.
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
Author
