Politicizing science and universities is bad for everyone
Many universities and science organizations have become partisan
In recent years, a concerning trend has emerged where many American universities, science organizations, and publications have displayed blatant political biases. The traditional left-leaning inclination among American university professors has grown even more pronounced, reaching extreme levels. A study of 40 leading universities revealed Democrat professors outnumbering Republicans by a staggering 11.5 to 1. At Harvard University, over 80 percent of professors identify as liberal, while only 16 percent consider themselves moderate, and a mere one percent as conservative.
While some level of political leaning is acceptable, the danger arises when it becomes so skewed that universities and organizations transform into echo chambers, fostering groupthink and adopting a stifling orthodoxy that hinders diverse perspectives and dissent.
Unfortunately, in many instances today, this type of orthodoxy and intolerance have become prevalent. Progressive and, at times, extreme ideologies dominate. Professors have faced harassment, punishment, and even termination for expressing viewpoints outside the established orthodoxy.
Professors and students increasingly self-censor. This extends beyond conservatives, as even many moderate and liberal students say they refrain from expressing their views for fear of being attacked and socially ostracized.
The politicization extends beyond universities to many scientific organizations, where progressive orthodoxies take precedence. Some scientific journals have become platforms for promoting postmodernist progressive social justice ideology, while dissenting perspectives are banned. Nature and Scientific American now do the once unthinkable of endorsing presidential candidates.
Theoretical physicist and public science literacy expert Lawrence Krauss wrote, “In recent years, and especially since the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, academic science leaders have adopted wholesale the language of dominance and oppression previously restricted to ‘cultural studies’ journals to guide their disciplines, to censor dissenting views, to remove faculty from leadership positions if their research is claimed by opponents to support systemic oppression.”
Prominent public intellectuals such as Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt, Glenn Loury, Robert George, and Jerry Coyne, have expressed great concerns about the ideological corruption of academia and research. Over 1600 academics signed a public letter titled “Restoring Academic Freedom”, denouncing the chilling effect on academic discourse due to ideological pressure. Ukrainian-born USC chemistry professor Anna Krylov draws parallels between this ideological corruption and the corruption in the former Soviet Union.
‘The Peril of Politicizing Science” by Anna Krylov
"The Ideological Corruption of Science" by Lawrence Krauss
"Restoring Academic Freedom" - Open Letter
"Scientific American dedicates itself to politics, not science" by Jerry Coyne
.
This partisan politicization of universities and science organizations is bad for everyone, including people on the left. The following are some reasons:
.
It undermines science and research
Promoting an ideology and insisting that research, topics, results, and publications align with or endorse that ideology undermines the essence of science and objective inquiry.
The vitality of science and academic research lies in the freedom to explore, express, and debate. Science is meant to pursue knowledge as objectively as possible, regardless of where it may lead. It often uncovers discoveries that challenge conventional wisdom and expectations. Diversity of perspectives and thought-provoking ideas from scientists is imperative.
The dustructiveness of ideological orthodoxy in science is evident throughout history. The Soviet Union's ideological interference eradicated the field of agricultural genetics in the 1930s, replacing it with pseudoscientific practices, and resulted in widespread crop failure and famine. The U.S. Federal ban on embryo stem cells and fetal tissue research for religious reasons hinders life-saving medical treatments. During the Covid pandemic, political and ideological pressures on medicine and science communication led to unnecessary deaths.
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago says that the recent ideological distortion of science and the censorship of findings has led to public misunderstanding of basic scientific facts and hinders the dissemination of truth.
When ideology dictates scientific adherence and well-researched facts are suppressed for not aligning with the ideology, it has become a dogmatic religion.
Biased Science Makes Bad Policy | Psychology Today
“An Existential Threat to Doing Good Science,” by Luana Maroja
"Censorship in science: a new paper and analysis" by Jerry Coyne
.
It underminds higher education
Diversity is important in education and universities. This includes students interacting with people not only of various races, ethnicities, nationalities, and sexes, but with various viewpoints, philosophies, and political beliefs.
The exchange of a broad spectrum of ideas is required for a good education. It catalyzes creativity and learning, fostering an environment where students engage with and contemplate diverse opinions and perspectives. Embracing this diversity is integral to expanding their minds, acquiring knowledge, and preparing for a multicultural world.
In a letter protesting the prevailing ideological orthodoxy at Harvard University, computer science professor and former Harvard College Dean Harry Lewis wrote, “Professors should not be carrying their ideologies into the classroom. Our job as teachers of ‘citizens and citizen-leaders' is not to indoctrinate students, but to prepare them to grapple with all of the ideas they will encounter in the societies they will serve.”
"Reaping What We Have Taught" by Harry Lewis
.
It erodes public trust in science and universities
When scientific findings are manipulated to align with a political ideology, public trust in reported scientific results and the entire scientific community falls. Perceiving universities as politically skewed institutions engaged in ideological indoctrination further erodes public trust and respect for these institutions.
Polls showed that the endorsement of political candidates by Scientific American and Nature resulted in heightened distrust not only in the magazines themselves but also in scientific findings in general. Recent Gallup Polling data reveals a significant decline in public trust in higher education, plummeting by 18 percent to 36 percent over the past five years.
When science becomes entangled in political partisanship and tribal polarization, it poses a danger to society.
Americans' Confidence in Higher Education Down Sharply (gallup.com)
The Atlantic explains why Americans’ respect for universities is tanking
Trust in science is becoming more polarized, survey finds | University of Chicago News
.
What to do
Science organizations, journals, and universities should remove required political and ideological ideologies, whether formal or informal. Universities should become aware of the corrosive aspects of extreme political imbalances and institutional orthodoxies at schools, and that they are losing public trust. Science journals should stick to science and not engage in political partisanship. Free speech rules should be enforced at universities. Students should be taught the importance of listening to and considering diverse viewpoints, and everyone should be taught critical thinking. People concerned with these issues should speak up and push back against these corrosive and dangerous trends.