8 | Southern Poverty Law Center for Scientists
Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.
—Marie Curie
Complaining about a problem without posing a solution is called whining.
—Theodore Roosevelt
More than 20 years ago, the author and public intellectual Malcolm Gladwell wrote about “tipping points” to explain how a major social trend gains critical mass before it spills across societies [1]. Although COVID-19 acted as the accelerant for widespread anti-vaccine aggression, its major elements were already in place by 2019. A health freedom campaign had first spread out of Texas in the 2010s and had taken hold even before the pandemic. It became a key part of the political platforms of first the Tea Party and then the far-right. Extremist elements within the conservative movement embraced the central tenets of health freedom propaganda, which included reframing vaccine refusal and defiance as a core American value that prioritized vaccine choice over public safety, touted unproven treatments, and pushed nutritional supplements to promote natural immunity as superior to supposedly toxic vaccine ingredients. All of these pieces drove us to a tipping point.
As the pandemic unfolded, these views became central to American political life on the right. Members of Congress from the House Freedom Caucus, as well as some red state legislatures and governors, openly questioned the safety or effectiveness of vaccines, while demonizing them as political instruments of control. Both Media Matters and the Center for Law and Health at ETH Zurich (considered Europe’s equivalent of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) documented how this new outlook was promulgated nightly on Fox News and other conservative outlets, becoming talking points for podcasters. Meanwhile, a group of contrarians from think tanks and universities gave it academic cover and legitimacy. Unfortunately, this challenge to medical science did not stop at vaccines. A new triumvirate of elected officials, conservative news outlets, and pseudointellectuals, as well as the courts, now voiced their disdain for masks and other public health measures. Eventually they claimed that COVID-19 was deliberately created in a laboratory supported by funds from the NIAID-NIH and began to vilify prominent US biomedical scientists. In 2022, the Florida commissioner of education, Richard Corcoran, began banning certain math textbooks on the grounds that they “incorporate prohibited topics or unsolicited strategies” [2]. The governor praised him. A nation built in part on the ingenuity and commitment of scientists and scientific institutions flipped on its side. Now science and scientists were objects of derision and in some circles considered enemies of the state.
Those tuning in nightly to Fox News or paying attention to the rhetoric of House Freedom Caucus Republicans refused COVID-19 vaccinations. When the hurricane known as the COVID-19 Delta variant reached the United States in 2021, it found lots of warm water in the form of millions of unvaccinated Americans who also considered masks and other prevention measures contemptible. Many were Republicans of lower educational attainment living in rural or suburban areas of Texas and other southern states, Appalachia, and regions of the Mountain West. An estimated 200,000 died unnecessarily because they believed more in their elected officials, Fox News, and the contrarians than they did the scientists. Anti-science aggression thus became a major killing force in the United States [3]. Many additional Americans who refused vaccinations became disabled from long COVID, or their children became orphans.
Not stopping at US borders, this lethal force moved into Canada and disrupted life there. The anti-science ecosystem now pervades western Europe, where it also links with extremist elements, just as it does in the United States. The Proud Boys march at anti-vaccine rallies in this country, as do extremists in Europe. These elements form a core of authoritarianism embedded in democratic republics, and its proponents openly admire autocratic leaders and governments in Hungary, Brazil, and elsewhere. Further fueling the movement is a Russian propaganda machine deployed by the Putin government, which sees the benefits of destabilizing democracies through anti-vaccine and anti-science disinformation. Along with the elements just highlighted, anti-vaccine activists identified by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) are generating additional—and lethal—anti-vaccine and anti-science content [4]. The propaganda from the West and from Russia now reaches low-income nations in Africa and Asia, where it interferes with COVID-19 vaccine uptake. A summary of this frightening new world order is presented in figure 8.1.
Tragically, this situation is not the beginning of the end, but more like the end of the beginning. Currently, little prevents this anti-science juggernaut from expanding. Although it reached critical mass during the pandemic, this movement is no longer only about COVID-19, and we should expect it will spill over to other areas, with a resulting drop in immunization rates for all childhood vaccines and interference with many other aspects of public health, including global efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases. Anti-science has begun to contaminate other cutting-edge fields of biomedicine, including gene editing, bioinformatics, stem cell research, fetal medicine, systems biology, transplant biology, and modern neuroscience. This will only get worse.
Figure 8.1. The anti-vaccine/anti-science “health freedom” ecosystem worldwide.
In the meantime, the US government response to anti-science aggression remains modest. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) focuses its energies on Facebook and the social media companies, encouraging them to adjust their computer algorithms to reduce the tidal wave of disinformation. While helpful, this approach by itself does very little to stop the far-right from generating dangerous Internet content or the elected officials who campaign on their successes in attacking science and scientists. The Biden administration is concerned, but so far it has not tapped expertise outside the health sector and sought advice from cabinet departments ranging from Homeland Security to Justice and State. Similarly, the UN agencies wring their hands about the “infodemic” but do not raise this issue with authoritarian leaders in the UN Security Council or General Assembly. Halting anti-science aggression both within their borders or internationally remains a second-tier priority. Regarding GOP extremism, an umbrella under which falls this new anti-science, the Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, writes, “it cannot be appeased or compromised with. It can only be defeated” [5]. He may be correct.
We should also be concerned about additional drivers. Although most mainstream religions support vaccinations and scientific accomplishments, there are fringe elements that do not. This explains the assassinations of polio vaccinators in Afghanistan and Pakistan—both Muslim-majority nations—and the reemergence of measles among Orthodox Jewish groups in New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere in 2019. Some Evangelical Christian groups also now adopt anti-vaccine platforms [6], at times forming dangerous alliances with conservative or far-right groups to discourage vaccinations and other COVID-19 preventions. Today, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity together have more than four billion adherents. We must work with religious leaders to halt anti-science beliefs from going mainstream.
Regarding Evangelical Christianity, some have argued that anti-vaccine activism is far less tied to actual religion than it is to core values of the Middle American Radicals who feel oppressed by America’s elites living in the Northeast or California [7]. Yet another term sometimes used for this disaffected group is the “New Right,” whose members (“New Rightists”) are not “doctrinaire libertarians” but who would rather impose their own mandates, including abortion bans, rescinding the rights of the LGBTQ community, and requiring school curricula that oppose elements of critical race theories [8, 9]. These radical groups rail against what they term “woke lunacy” [7]. Perhaps in their view, vaccines and vaccinations somehow became part of the canon of wokeness, which is a reason I believe some public figures seek to discredit vaccines. In this case, we need to work harder to remind Middle America or what some call the “flyover nation” that vaccines and other products derived from cutting-edge science are not woke, but lifesaving interventions. We must help everyone understand that the United States is a nation built on science and technology, and that preserving its greatness depends on embracing scientific principles as a fundamental American value.
Still another concern is the fact that large numbers of healthcare professionals shunned COVID-19 vaccinations during the pandemic, including many from conservative or religious groups, according to Tim Callaghan and his colleagues [10]. Anti-vaccine activism among the health professions represents another ominous trend. Then, in 2020, Renée DiResta from the Stanford Internet Observatory raised yet another concern [11]. Artificial intelligence (AI) now generates disinformation at an accelerated pace. Her warning, published in the Atlantic with the title “The Supply of Disinformation Will Soon Be Infinite,” suggests that anti-science aggression may soon expand its firepower capabilities. A key point to remember is that anti-science is no longer a theoretical construct. It already kills many people and causes permanent injury in countless others.
A Larger War on Science
Up until the mid-twentieth century, there was no obvious anti-science contingent in the Republican Party. At its start, the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, launched the National Academy of Sciences. The Eisenhower administration created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. However, in his 2005 book, The Republican War on Science [12], the journalist Chris Mooney benchmarks the rise of anti-intellectualism and distrust of academics to the failed presidential bid of Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964. Such attitudes even prompted the formation of a group known as Scientists and Engineers for Johnson-Humphrey, who attacked Goldwater for his reckless language concerning the use of nuclear weapons. Later, President Richard Nixon dissolved the office of the White House science advisor (subsequently restored under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter) because he considered the scientific community generally opposed to his efforts to promote antiballistic missiles or a supersonic transport high-speed passenger jet. Similarly, President Ronald Reagan was slow to accept HIV/AIDS as a public health crisis or promote the use of condoms or other AIDS prevention measures, even to the point of forbidding his surgeon general, Dr. C. Everett Koop, from speaking out on these issues. Koop in his memoir stated, “I have never understood why these peculiar restraints were placed on me” [13]. The Reagan White House also promoted the teaching of creationism in schools and banned federal support for fetal tissue transplantation research.
Some of these activities continued under President George H. W. Bush, although the senior Bush also elevated the importance of the president’s science advisor when he designated Yale University physics professor D. Allan Bromley as assistant to the president. However, henceforward the GOP’s support for many scientific activities waned even further. Mooney points out that Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia), in his role as Speaker of the House during the 1990s, began cultivating contrarian scientists to have them testify to Congress. This ushered in a period in which science was politicized to support the business community or other national interests. The George W. Bush White House promoted efforts to counter scientific consensus views in a diverse range of areas, including climate change, environmental protection, stem cell research, and alternative medicine practices. It is notable that in the almost 20 years between 2001 and 2019 (well before COVID-19), red states and counties had a consistently higher mortality rate from a variety of conditions, including heart disease, cancer, cerebrovascular illness, and chronic lung disease [14]. Undoubtedly the higher rates of poverty and comorbidities contributed to this situation, but we must also consider the role played by a lower public acceptance of scientific medicine in these areas.
In fairness, the same George W. Bush administration also championed many global health initiatives, including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the President’s Malaria Initiative. I personally worked with members of the Bush White House and conservative members of Congress, including then Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), to support mass treatments for neglected tropical diseases [15]. Now more than one billion people annually receive treatments for these conditions. Even then, in the early years of the 2000s, it was a straightforward proposition to work with both sides of the political aisle to promote global health legislation. I remember when Sen. Brownback invited me to speak to his prayer breakfast group, and afterward, I would go across the way to speak with liberal Democrats about the same issue. This was not even considered unusual. It was understood and accepted that bipartisanship was essential to accomplish important tasks. Politics is now more polarized than ever before in modern times. Today, I could not imagine transitioning from conservative to liberal members of Congress with the same ease and fluidity.
Climategate and Coronagate
In the years following the Nixon, Reagan, and two Bush administrations, right-wing anti-science tendencies expanded and became more ferocious. Some conservatives eventually embraced attacks on individual scientists. This was first apparent in climate science. My colleague Dr. Michael E. Mann, a distinguished climate scientist and geophysicist at the University of Pennsylvania, endured public attacks in what became known as “climategate.” In 2009, climate-change denialists hacked the e-mails of Dr. Mann and his colleagues, including Professor Phil Jones at East Anglia University, claiming they had found evidence that these and other scientists manipulated their data [16]. In addition to unjust allegations that the climate scientists had conspired to make up their findings regarding global warming, they received threats that resemble the ones I now receive regarding vaccines. For example, an e-mail to one of the East Anglia University faculty read: “Just a quick note to encourage you to shoot yourself in the head.” Also: “Don’t waste any more time. Do it today. It is truly the greatest contribution to mankind that you will ever make” [17]. The 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee and former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, penned an opinion piece in the Washington Post that opened with the following statements: “With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue” [18]. Ultimately, Mann and the other climate scientists involved were totally cleared of any wrongdoing, but not before they had to endure painful federal scientific misconduct investigations [19]. These activities ushered in a new era, in which not only was the science under attack by conservative groups or the far-right, but also the scientists themselves. When he was asked by Science magazine about the attacks on biomedical scientists during the COVID-19 pandemic, Mann responded, “We’re here; we feel your pain” [20].
The Trump White House continued its attacks on climate science and scientists, pulling out of the Paris climate accords and recruiting into government scientists who held contrarian or fringe views on the role of human activity in global warming [21]. I have previously highlighted the failings of the Trump administration in launching a COVID-19 response in the United States during the early months of the pandemic [22], and these were summarized in 2022 by the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis [23].
A similar level of aggression and ferocity was directed at virologists conducting basic research on coronaviruses. Coronaviruses that resemble the SARS-2 have been recovered from bats and other mammals across Southeast Asia [24, 25], and a strong body of evidence supports the emergence of COVID-19 among humans in central China following transmission from exotic animals (such as raccoon dogs and pangolins) through contact in the wet markets [26, 27]. Such evidence did not halt accusations by members of Congress against several prominent coronavirus researchers, including Drs. Peter Daszak at the EcoHealth Alliance and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina. Their allegations assert either that the virus was engineered or created artificially in a laboratory in the United States and later sent to China, or that American scientists supported dangerous research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, located in the same city where COVID-19 may have emerged in wet markets [28]. Others claim that the SARS-2 coronavirus somehow leaked from the Wuhan Institute. Because of my own experiences, I began reaching out to Peter Daszak by phone to offer my support or just to serve as a helpful friend and listener. Peter’s situation was reported by the prominent science journalist and writer Jon Cohen in his article for Science titled “Prophet in Purgatory”:
Daszak’s emails, tweets, letters, journal articles, and media interviews have been scrutinized; he has received blistering criticism in Congress, on social media, and in major news outlets; he has been accused of conflicts of interest, a lack of transparency, being a China apologist, and conducting reckless experiments. He has received death threats, including a letter holding white powder resembling anthrax, and journalists have staked out his home to shoot photos and videos. Two high-profile commissions to study the pandemic’s origin have collapsed in part because he was a member. [28]
Indeed, during our calls, Peter confirmed his distress and expressed concerns for the safety of his family. What also came through in our conversations was his righteous indignation. He became a scientist to help humankind, only to be vilified as an enemy of the state. For me as well, this aspect of the situation is especially demoralizing. We became scientists to help the nation and the world; as I have explained to Peter on several occasions, we are the true patriots, not the phony ones who attack us.
Foremost among the attacks against Dr. Daszak are claims that he received funds from NIAID-NIH to perform gain of function (GOF) research. For RNA viruses (like coronaviruses), GOF research involves the insertion of specific pieces of RNA into the virus genome to increase either the transmissibility or virulence of the virus, meaning greater severity of illness. In the case of coronaviruses, this includes insertion of small sequences of RNA that encode amino acids that render the surface spike protein of the virus more susceptible to a host cellular furin proteolytic enzyme. Such furin cleavage sites help to make SARS-2 more infectious or transmissible than its SARS-1 predecessor that emerged in 2002 [29]. However, as I have pointed out repeatedly in my interviews and in efforts to defend Peter Daszak, the simple truth is that furin cleavage sites are found in most subfamilies of coronaviruses [30, 31]. Even distinguished scientists who initially saw furin cleavage sites as a possible signature of human manipulation, subsequently backed off their claims [32]. Ultimately, several prominent biomedical scientists—including the virologists Robert Garry (Tulane University), Angela Rasmussen (University of Saskatchewan), Michael Worobey (University of Arizona), and the infectious disease and global health physician Dr. Gerald Keusch (Boston University)—wrote well-supported papers to debunk either the GOF claims or theories that somehow the SARS-2 coronavirus escaped from a laboratory [27, 33–36].
Despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to the natural origins of COVID-19, the finger-pointing related to GOF (or, alternatively, theories postulating a subsequent lab leak) continues against Daszak. In April 2022, two prominent Republican House members, Reps. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) and James Comer (R-Kentucky), asked the DHHS secretary to investigate Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance for unethical conduct and to bar both him and the organization from receiving future federal grants. Such actions would likely end Peter’s career as a scientist and effectively terminate the EcoHealth Alliance.
They also represent a backdoor approach by the far-right to discredit NIAID-NIH and Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose institute supported the research of both Drs. Daszak and Baric. Fox News anchors and multiple members of Congress, including Rep. Comer, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida), and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), have made outrageous and false claims, or they have insinuated that Dr. Fauci was responsible for creating the COVID-19 virus or starting the epidemic [37]. In 2022, prior to the November midterm elections, Sen. Paul made public statements indicating he would investigate Dr. Fauci if the Republicans ever gain a majority in the Senate [38]. A follow-up 35-page report by the Republican Senate staff ignored most of the actual science and previous committee investigations from the World Health Organization and US intelligence agencies, choosing instead to tout lab leak and other conspiracies [39]. The hashtag #FauciLiedPeopleDied occasionally trends on social media.
As Dr. David Gorski points out, it is not surprising that contrarian intellectuals or far-right think tanks piled on to these accusations [40], but then, in an unusual twist, several unrelated activist groups joined in. For example, organizations opposed to genetically modified food or agricultural products, which in some cases may also have ties to anti-vaccine groups, have called for bans against any GOF research or have demanded investigations into alleged NIH-supported lab leaks [41, 42], as have also some animal rights activists [43]. Some of these same groups even tried to draw me into GOF or lab leak accusations by falsely asserting that our coronavirus vaccine development efforts somehow supported GOF-related work.
The attacks and threats against the community of COVID-19 scientists won’t abate anytime soon and will likely continue well after the pandemic ends. An ominous blog called What Covid Crimes Will Victims Not Forgive? and published on the libertarian Brownstone Institute’s website warns:
The Covid response can and undoubtedly will be portrayed in future years as the product of criminal negligence. . . . Such a thing can get ugly. Once a population is truly convinced they have been betrayed by an elite that has both money and status (read: things to lose), all gloves are off. We are then in similar historical circumstances as those in which Germany found itself in the 1920s, where a belief spread in the idea that Germany had lost the Great War due to betrayal by socialists and Jews. . . . Just how powerful this story will turn out to be is difficult to predict, but what we can predict is who can be counted upon to champion it most vociferously: the businesspeople who irrecoverably lost their positions due to the Covid lockdowns and other restrictions, the young and single who for similar reasons lost the best years of their lives, and those who believe the vaccines did them and their children permanent damage. That alliance—forged in the fires of lasting hurt to human well-being—could produce a formidable adversary against the culpable Covid elites. [44]
Seeking Help
As I began reaching out to Michael Mann, Peter Daszak, and others under threat from anti-science groups, it became clear that certain themes were common to our journeys [45]. We recognize how anti-science aggression is deepening and widening. It was also becoming more menacing, as evidenced by the tone and details of the e-mail and social media threats—and in some cases, even physical stalkings. Another element was that the threats included specific efforts to end our scientific careers through outreach to our university administrators or fellow colleagues, as well as the agencies that fund our work. Even when the assertions have no basis in reality, the simple fact of knowing that certain people or groups seek to discredit your professional activities is unnerving. This is especially true for scientists, because our entire identity is often linked to our discoveries.
An especially chilling realization was that the attacks against us were a part of something much bigger. As I explained earlier, attacking science itself rarely suffices in a rising authoritarian regime, whose leaders soon find it necessary to go after individual scientists. We had become enemies of the state. Most of the major scientific and professional societies offer little solace because of their commitment to political neutrality. This dark period of anti-science makes clear that these organizations must undergo reform. However, it is unlikely that this would be a quick process. In the meantime, the scientific community currently works under the threat of powerful and authoritarian segments of a society that dominates many portions of the cable news outlets, the Internet, and the halls of Congress. These realities underlie my plea to fellow scientists to expand our level of public engagement and science communication. This includes communicating in new and different ways, such as appealing to emotion and core human values, but also not being afraid to take a political stand. Political neutrality, while desirable, may not always be possible when anti-science aggression displays such a strong partisan divide, and so many Americans lose their lives in our red states. It is essential to remember that scientists have not politicized vaccines and COVID-19 prevention measures. Instead, this was done by elected officials, conservative news outlets, the courts, and contrarians. Our job is to say: This makes no sense, and it is destroying lives. Our obligation is to uncouple the anti-science movement from political extremism on the right.
To enlist the help of colleagues and to seek their advice, I reached out to two informal groups. One included regular e-mails or Zoom chats with Peter Daszak and two esteemed colleagues, Drs. Gerald Keusch and Rich Roberts. Dr. Keusch was former director of the NIH Fogarty International Center, and Rich Roberts is a Nobel laureate for his work in eukaryotic RNA expression who helped to create New England BioLabs. While our group was originally organized to help advise Peter Daszak in managing the unfair and unjust assaults on his character and organization, in time, as I became a target for very different reasons—my staunch support of vaccines—I found the calls personally useful for comparing notes and even risk-management strategies for potential physical confrontations. I also joined a second informal group formed by the renowned University of Minnesota epidemiologist Dr. Mike Osterholm. Mike convened a distinguished group of physicians and scientists that included two former FDA commissioners—Drs. Margaret Hamburg and Stephen Hahn—as well as Drs. Eric Topol (Scripps Research Translational Institute), Bruce Gellin (Rockefeller Foundation), Penny Heaton (Gates Foundation and later Johnson & Johnson), and Ruth Berkelman (CDC). In time, all these individuals became friends who helped to guide me through anti-science aggression during the time of the pandemic. Finally, because of the anti-Semitic leanings of many of the anti-science attacks, B’nai B’rith International and the Anti-Defamation League have offered me assistance and valuable advice.
These experiences have led me to think about less-fortunate colleagues who do not have access to prominent scientists for advice and help when targeted by anti-science groups. Some university or academic medical center offices of communications, or their general counsels, employ trained professionals to help students, postdoctoral fellows, resident physicians, and faculty navigate the complexities countering anti-science aggression. However, the level of support varies a lot by institution. Some discourage their young scientists from engaging the public because it potentially opens the institution up to public criticism. All too often, scientists receive the message (either subliminally or overtly) that they speak out at their own risk.
The reality is that the needs of scientists under threat from anti-science forces are pervasive. Among the many kinds of help we require in these circumstances is counsel on managing threats delivered via e-mail or social media, including coordinated bullying campaigns, as well as attacks by the conservative media. It is not unusual for even senior scientists to face reputational loss, or potential loss of employment, as a result of such threats. Still another type of intimidation is known as “legal thuggery,” in which anti-science groups or individuals use letters written by attorneys to threaten defamation or libel suits. Such letters seek to frighten scientists into silence. Unfortunately, this technique is sometimes quite effective. As another example of legal thuggery, Peter Daszak tells me that both he and the EcoHealth Alliance have faced lawsuits alleging that they ignited the COVID-19 pandemic. Even though these charges have no basis, such lawsuits require hiring law firms, paying legal fees, and dealing with the emotional stress that accompanies these activities. Other prominent US biomedical scientists have also needed legal aid in response to anti-science aggression. Given that anti-science aggression may accelerate through the use of artificial intelligence and other forces, it is especially important that the scientific community prepare and respond.
A New Type of Support
In an ideal setting, one of the current scientific or professional societies or the national academies would step up to create organized and comprehensive assistance to scientists in distress. Some pieces are already in place. For instance, the Committee of Concerned Scientists is an important international organization that tracks human rights abuses against scientists in countries such as China, Turkey, and Iran [46], but it was not necessarily created for the complex attacks now occurring from the authoritarian right in the United States.
In response to the attacks on Michael Mann and other climate scientists, a Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was created as a 501(c)3 nonprofit to help with legal costs or defense against lawsuits [47]. Today, it supports scientists who are under threat or silenced and also works to strengthen legal protections for scientists while promoting the integrity of climate science. It offers free legal aid, educates scientists about their rights and responsibilities, shares strategies with attorneys, and publicizes attacks on climate science and scientists. Therefore, one idea is to establish a similar defense fund for biomedical or COVID-19 scientists. On a 2022 Zoom call with an individual from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, together with representatives from the Union of Concerned Scientists, I discussed this possibility. The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit advocacy group founded in 1969 by the students and faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for reshaping government science policies to address environmental and nonmilitary applications [48]. This organization first reached out to me following my Boston Globe opinion piece on biomedical scientists under threat [49].
Among the ideas I floated on the call, and one I also wrote about for the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the largest society of experimental biologists in America, was to create an entity that resembled the Southern Poverty Law Center [50], but for biomedical scientists [51]. The Southern Poverty Law Center was created in 1971 to combat racism and promote civil rights through a legal framework. The organization is also a clearinghouse for collecting information about hate groups, working with law enforcement to protect people of color and other victims of discrimination. A good strategy might be to establish a similar organization, this one committed to the protections of biomedical scientists and willing to champion our rights, especially when we are under attack by extremist elements. Such an organization should be one that can respond quickly to the needs of US scientists across the country, with deep familiarity with the various types of threats launched by far-right and other anti-science groups. The type of risk-management help should range from legal advice to managing online threats and even assistance with law enforcement. Another opportunity might be to expand the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, adopted in 2021 to protect Asian-Americans against political violence [52], to protect American scientists as well. Given the increase of anti-science aggression in the United States and its incorporation into mainstream conservative politics, such remedies could address the urgent needs of the mainstream scientific community.
Response from the US Government
The fact that the DHHS and US surgeon general have responded at all and that they now work with the major social media platforms is a positive development and one that should continue to be encouraged. However, these actions do not address those generating the content from the far-right, the role of the disinformation dozen in monetizing the Internet, or the Russian government’s weaponized health communication. Given the 20 years of relative neglect by the US government in tackling anti-science aggression, I believe we must realize that this issue goes way beyond the health sector. We need input from other branches of the federal government such as the Departments of Homeland Security, Commerce, Justice—and even State, given the Russian involvement. We must seek ways to demonetize the use of the Internet by the disinformation dozen or halt the anti-science aggression emanating from Fox News and elected officials, but in ways that do not violate the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. Although the health sector may not know what can and should be done to address anti-science aggression, there are those who do and who could come to the table with experiences that taught them how to combat global terrorism, cyberattacks, and nuclear proliferation. We must learn from them. Along those lines, the White House should consider establishing an interagency task force to examine such possibilities and to make recommendations for action to slow the progression of anti-science. And given the globalization of the anti-science ecosystem, especially in Canada and Europe, we can also seek help and input from international organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the United Nations. Until now, such agencies have been employed to combat more conventional and globalizing threats. Anti-science aggression now warrants this level of engagement and a counterresponse (fig. 8.2).
Figure 8.2. A proposed framework for combating anti-science aggression.
As someone who personally endures attacks from conservative news outlets and US elected officials, I speak from experience when I say that it is increasingly apparent that we need a clearinghouse and organization to specifically support or defend scientists in America.
We are a nation built on our great research universities and institutes, so we therefore must recognize the contributions of scientists to the history of the United States. The only way America can remain a role model for the rest of the world is to solidly back our scientists and keep them free from the threats and pressures of political extremist groups. Otherwise, we risk losing our best minds to other endeavors. It is essential that young people growing up in the United States recognize the scientific profession as important, and one worth defending. In turn, those who come to America for scientific training must see it as a nation that honors its scientists and is perceived as an international role model. In parallel, we must engage the White House and international organizations such as NATO or the UN to lead a response that no longer relies exclusively on the health sector. We need the advice of experts who understand big-picture global threats such as terrorism, cyberattacks, or nuclear proliferation. Finally, we need a new framework for science communication—one that is unafraid of political engagement or confrontation and is willing to shepherd and train the next generation of biomedical scientists.
Biomedical science in America is under threat, and this has deadly consequences. Anti-science aggression is a leading killer of unvaccinated adults who have been rendered unnecessarily vulnerable to COVID-19. Because of anti-science and its expanded organization, funding, and political power, responding to the next pandemic will be even more challenging. However, even today, many biomedical scientists live in an environment of fear or uncertainty just by pursuing their daily activities. The COVID-19 pandemic is only the beginning. Anti-science has become a new normal that threatens American democratic principles and our way of life. The sad reality is that it is now apparent that outside groups are not coming to our rescue and that the scientific community must help itself—especially the biomedical scientists currently in jeopardy from far-right, authoritarian, and extremist groups. A timely, strong, and robust response from the scientific community is essential. The future of scientific inquiry in the United States and globally depends on how we regroup and act.