science and politics

As the election drew closer, several scientific journals took the unprecedented step of endorsing a Presidential candidate. The cries of "politics polluting science" are met by equally vociferous shouts of "It's about time. Make the madness stop." As with many beliefs, the Age of COVID requires the relationship between science and politics to be rediscovered and refashioned.
Our friendly neighbors to the north are fibbing about the coronavirus in their country, justifying a border closure with the United States that no longer makes sense.
In 2020, empirically determined knowledge is only considered true if it first passes a litmus test -- not the geeky pH variety but the obnoxious political one. The results are as absurd and dangerous as you'd imagine, particularly when it involves COVID and cable news.
Scientific American, a once preeminent magazine that thoughtful and curious people read (or at least respected), has become an outlet for pseudoscience and politics. What a shame.
Incompetence, waffling, moving the goalposts, disregarding unintended consequences, and being political have hurt Americans' confidence in their public health institutions.
There are at least 24 different concepts of what constitutes a species. Unfortunately, politics plays a substantial role in the process.
We must dismantle the perfect storm of incivility, anti-intellectualism, and tribalism -- worsened by the sewer pipe of social media -- that has gripped our country. In its place, we must foster a culture of intellectualism, skepticism, and empathy. But that lofty goal seems unreachable in the current milieu.
The coronavirus pandemic has devolved into just another partisan battle. In the process, it has revealed how poorly served Americans are by their leaders and the media.
The problem of high drug prices is multifaceted and complex. Referring to the pharmaceutical industry employing "crooks" might be good for some cheap applause, but it's demoralizing to the thousands of scientists who work in it. Senator Sanders should apologize.
On climate policy, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believe there is no middle ground. AOC said, "You're either fighting for our future or you're not," which sounds an awful lot like, "You're either with us or against us." This is wrong and counterproductive.
Pop quiz: What do The New York Times, Jeffrey "the yogic flying instructor" Smith, and the National Resources Defense Council have in common? Answer: They all shamelessly lie about glyphosate to make money. (And you get extra credit if you answered "They are all bad sources of science information.")
California is a trendsetter. It’s home to world-class wine, championship basketball teams, beautiful weather and legendary cities like San Francisco. But sadly, it's also a trendsetter when it comes to wrongheaded public health policy. There’s no better example of this than Proposition 65, a law that as of 2016 has cost California businesses close to $300 million.