The Politicization of Science: Why it is Used and How to Avoid Misinformation

Breaking news! New research unveiled! Graphs, statistics, and mumbles of numbers are a part of our daily lives. We stare at them, unsure of what they mean, hoping we can take someone else’s word for it. In this, though, there comes a problem. What happens if these graphs are wrong? This is the goal of the politicization of science, to alter the graphs in a way that supports their political beliefs. We have seen this through, as my interviewee puts it, “from old cigarette ads to, more recently, climate change, we’ve seen science be altered to fit a political view, instead of the other way around.” Politicians have realized that instead of altering their agenda to fit the science, which is the logical thing to do, they can instead alter the science, to fit their own agendas. This is a major part of the reason why America is extremely divided.

Science can be politicalized through various means. The easiest and also the most commonly used method is to question or outright deny the verifiability of the research. This is mostly used as it can be used and repeated several times with very few resources. All that is needed is somewhere to speak, whether it be from social media or an actual stage. Although less effective, it is usually used as a stepping stone into other forms. After a speech, people will fund, or, in some cases, already funding, opposition groups and alternative research. Opposition groups can be from a genuine supporter base or funded through a technique called astroturfing. Astroturfing is where you pay protesters to go out in the streets, like marching or protesting right outside a building. These are people that may not even believe in your cause, however, need the money. Alternative research is published that supports your opinion or political beliefs. This can be produced by scientists who already share similar beliefs to you, and therefore may subconsciously alter their own research, or from unqualified scientists who have no idea what they are talking about. Out of all of these, an entirely different one is most common and, surprisingly, easier. This one, is, of course, biasing the science by paying for it. It is more complicated than it sounds, but still much easier than the rest in logistics. Instead of hoping that a paper from an unqualified scientist is published, or that a faulty paper is released because of the scientist's existing biases, it can be ensured. A simple deal, like paying for salaries and repairs to a research lab for a couple of months after the company does research there, can go a very long way. It is implied, but not said, that if the company does not get the desired results, they will take their business elsewhere. The sad reality is, research labs do not get much funding normally, and sometimes need to occasionally make these deals, in order to not go out of business, and are stuck in a position of being truthful, or not going out of business.

This politicization of science trend is extremely hard to spot, as media will have to investigate, but are sometimes barred from doing so, as sometimes the research contracts to the labs include a non-disclosure agreement for years on end after the research is long completed. When my interviewee asked about how they noticed the politicization of science, they responded, “I found out about it both on my own and by others. Although I have noticed some minor details, I usually rely on the news, since it is their job to help the public understand. They showed the public how biased various research papers were, most notably the one published several years ago that linked vaccines to autism, and I hope they continue to expose more papers like it.” This shows how the public can’t go around and find various papers, peer-reviewed studies, company testimonials, and various other things, to see if the science is false, and therefore, the general public relies on the media. Assuming the media does not get paid off, which they definitely, definitely, do, there is now regulation and loopholes on what the media can see. Companies are learning to stop responding altogether, or have a very limited, PR-oriented response to journalist email inquiries. However, there are ways to overcome this.

Despite these setbacks, there is still a way to find the truth about what is really going on. There are a variety of fact-checkers online that can shorten the amount of time researching to just a google search. When learning about policies for the next election, instead of learning about the policies from lying politicians, take a minute to search it on google to find the truth.