The reasons behind why anti-science sentiment is growing

In a scene from Teen Titans Go , an American animated series, one of the main characters is heard saying, "If you see a scientist, squash him like the cockroach he is." That episode is about scientists, who are portrayed as a secret society and who aim to impose the International System of Units (the imperial system is still used in the US) in order to enslave the American people.

Although the mention may seem innocent, it represents a small sample of the aversion to science that certain sectors of society exude, and which has even infiltrated children's programming.

Why is this anti-scientific sentiment growing? This is largely due to the efforts of certain politicians (without forgetting the serious impact of fake news on social media; see the box). In this article, however, we will address a less explored and, arguably, more uncomfortable angle: how academia has contributed to the politicization of science.

First, it's worth clarifying that the anti-science movement is by no means widespread. The largest study conducted to date, with nearly 72,000 participants across 68 countries, showed that citizens have great confidence in science. Anti-science groups constitute a minority, although they evidently possess great political influence.

The same study warned against attributing this anti-science sentiment to a particular ideology: anti-science bias is as prevalent in right-wing as in left-wing citizens, although the association varies by country. In Central Europe, for example, anti-science bias tends to be right-wing, while in Eastern Europe it tends to be left-wing.

Although citizens trust science, destroying this trust is not too difficult. Some of the world's most influential scientific journals, such as Nature and the Lancet, contributed to this when they publicly endorsed Joe Biden before the 2020 US election. These journals explicitly urged people not to vote for Donald Trump.

Researcher Floyd Zhang evaluated the social impact of Nature's endorsement of Biden, and his results were crystal clear: no one changed their ideology or vote after reading the editorial, but Trump voters lost confidence in Nature. The latter also began to show more suspicion of the journal's articles on COVID-19 (the study was conducted during the pandemic). Regarding Biden voters, the editorial had no effect.

Nature responded quickly to Zhang's study, and, paradoxically, in true Trumpian fashion. It decided it wasn't interested in the study and would continue writing editorials urging people to vote against presidential candidates if it so desired. In fact, in the 2024 election, it again urged people to vote against Trump.

Regardless of one's ideology, it's easy to imagine why a citizen would be wary of science after reading a journal like Nature telling them who they should vote for. Furthermore, these types of editorials can serve as an excuse to justify the pressure the Trump administration is beginning to exert on various scientific journals.

There are other actions by scientists that have fostered the politicization of science. Climate change has become a paradigmatic case of how a purely scientific issue is politicized. Perhaps the most obvious example of how academia has contributed to politicizing this debate is found in those who argue that not having children is the most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions. It is clear that these types of "solutions" undermine the credibility of the current serious climate crisis.

Another example of the politicization of science is found in the cancel culture, which has also taken root in academic life, as Noam Chomsky warned. Debates in universities are being repressed when ideas are presented that are not liked by a particular group . It is forgotten that the best way to refute false arguments is through thought, argumentation, and persuasion.

Freedom of expression and thought are non-negotiable principles in a just society , and as long as academia doesn't defend them tooth and nail, it will contribute to their politicization.

In fact, studies show that the main form of academic censorship, at least until a few years ago, came from scientists themselves. Some consider it perfectly legitimate, for example, to veto articles on moral grounds. Self-censorship has also been documented to be common, albeit for different reasons.

Scientific progress has been key to the development of free and democratic societies. Among other reasons, this has been because criticizing the government in power, regardless of its political affiliation, has always been one of our duties as scientists. At least in the free world, criticism of those who implement policies without a scientific basis, or openly authoritarian or totalitarian measures, is necessary, but it should not be confused with soliciting votes for a particular candidate.

There is a scientific activism that resembles philosophy, and another that resembles self-help. The former teaches you how to think, while the latter tells you how to think and act. Science should educate without pontificating. Our role is to provide citizens with enough information so they can make their own decisions and separate truth from misinformation.

There is a scientific activism that resembles philosophy, and another that resembles self-help. The former teaches you how to think, while the latter tells you how to think and act. Science should educate without pontificating.

There have always been, and will continue to be, totalitarian governments that seek to silence science for ideological reasons. The most serious example currently exists in the United States, where a tyrannical executive order is being discussed that seeks to control the results of any scientific research when it has political repercussions.

If the results of the study contradict the president's directives, the study is considered subversive and dangerous to democracy. This legislative proposal paints a picture of the United States halfway between the nineteenth-century Spain portrayed by Benito Pérez Galdós in Miau (only those close to power work in the administration) and Orwell's London in 1984 (the government determines what is true).

Science is in growing danger in parts of the free world. We must avoid being swept away by political currents more than ever.

(*) Professor of Forestry Engineering and Global Change at the University of Lleida. (**) This is a non-profit organization that seeks to share academic ideas and knowledge with the public. This article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons license.