Photo: Laila Gebhardt/Unsplash

• On August 25, Science’s “News and Analysis” section published a rebuttal to the monologue that appeared on Fox News’ program “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
• Carlson called Anthony Fauci a con man who committed a serious crime. Science then fact-checked Carlson’s claims and found none of them to be true.
• On his blog, science writer and speaker Stuart Ritchie debated whether scientific journals should publish this kind of political counter-argument or stay the status quo.
• In this article, Professor Gautam I. Menon examines the same issue. – From an Indian perspective.

A disclaimer accompanies this article byline. The views expressed herein are his and do not represent his institution.

It may seem surprising that I need to say this. Individuals have their own views. But what does the institutional view mean?

Some people enjoy the disclaimer text. Robert Park, who wrote a regular monthly column for the American Physical Society, “What’s New,” said, “Opinions are those of the author and not necessarily shared by the university, but should be shared.” ‘ and concludes.

The informed scientific opinion is that if plants can be genetically modified to produce more nutritious foods or crops that are more resistant to drought and pests, then they should be. People are more skeptical as long as they think about these issues. Elected politicians cannot remain indifferent to what voters think.

Most scientists might consider manned lunar missions to be a waste of resources and unlikely to yield substantial new knowledge. But an element of national pride in such achievements, encouraged by politicians of all kinds, enters here and exceeds what should be a purely scientific assessment.

Where should scientific journals intervene in the volatile field where science and politics intersect? Knowing that, how much should we try to educate the public about these issues?

The editorial policies of prominent international scientific journals such as: chemistry, Nature or Proceedings of the Royal Society Rarely political. They may point out the need for additional funding for science or comment on scientific issues. scandal du jourbut they rarely make explicit political statements.

However, there are exceptions. In 2008, Nature For the first time in more than 150 years, we endorsed US presidential candidate Barack Obama. )

medical journals such as jam Also lancet, has become somewhat bolder in their editorials. But this is also because, as the German pathologist and politician Rudolf Virchow insightfully put it, “medicine is a social science, and politics is nothing but medicine on a large scale.” There is also.

One reason for this reticence is that scientific journals are often owned by large multinational corporations. Nature was acquired by Springer in 2010, expanding the reach of the already hugely profitable company.journal chemistryHowever, it is owned by a scientific non-profit organization.

August 25th of this year, chemistryThe “News and Analysis” section of . fox news Display “Tucker Carlson Tonight”. In it, Carlson targeted Anthony Fauci, calling him a dangerous con man who committed serious crimes, announcing that Fauci would step down as chief medical adviser to the President of the United States at the end of the year. It was three days after him.

What Carlson says is important because of the size of his audience on American television.In July 2020, his show broke the record for the highest-rated program in US cable news history. He regularly speaks to approximately 4.5 million viewers, which far exceeds his CNN and his MSNBC competitors.

chemistrypointed out that virtually everything Tucker Carlson said was “misleading or false.”

Regarding Fauci, Carlson said:

“Then he publicly lied about the mask, saying, ‘When you’re on your bike, you should wear this. There’s too much life-boosting oxygen. What you really need is carbon dioxide. More trees.’ In public, he said so, but in private he wrote, “The common mask you buy at the drugstore is not very effective at preventing the virus.” .”

chemistry He objected as follows.

“Fauci has never issued these supposed quotes publicly. e-mail He sent in February 2020. Evidence for the effectiveness of masks at the start of the pandemic was limited. As Fauci explained, there is no shortage of masks, revealing that asymptomatic COVID-19 is common, causing many infections and that the virus can be spread through aerosols. He changed his mind about promoting the use of masks after he became ”

Carlson also said, “Researchers at Johns Hopkins University [University] I acknowledged that the lockdown didn’t really work. They have ruined people’s lives for no reason. ”

chemistry “Written by economists rather than epidemiologists, this ‘work report’ was heavily criticized. We conclude that it helped reduce the strain on the system.”

In an interesting blog post, science writer and lecturer Stuart Ritchie shares his thoughts on the subject:

“…then why am I chemistry piece? This is the sort of thing you see all the time on sites dedicated to political fact-checking, but I had never seen it in a scientific journal. I am all for debunking misleading and false arguments. But is it a good thing that scientific journals are now publishing direct, detailed attacks on right-wing shocking jokes?”

Ritchie describes a style of conversation between two “alternative selves” called Stuart Alpha, who opposes politics being published in magazines, and Stuart Prime, who is sympathetic to scientific journals announcing similar interventions. presents his arguments both for and against.

Stuart Alpha explained his argument by stating: future. “

Stuart Prime countered:

“In the United States (and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom) a very popular right-wing media figure is carrying out massive attacks against science and scientists like Fauci. Millions watch Tucker Carlson’s show, and the fact that he’s spreading such blatant lies every night to an audience of that size is infuriating to anyone thinking. , scientific journals claiming to sit still and publish nothing to counter this relentless attack? department).”

In India, several publications of the Indian Academy of Sciences. current science A magazine founded by CV Raman et al. in 1932 and published by the multinational publisher Springer. However, they are editorially independent.

Despite this independence, Indian scientific journals are strictly silent on issues that intersect with politics. This silence is probably excessive. Hardened arguments for political interference in science, political attacks on scientists, and even politics-driven distortions in funding and governance are absent from their editorials.

Indeed, especially when viewed from outside the scientific community, their objectivity would be lost if Indian journals took on an overtly political dimension. Equally, however, it would be strange if they remained, as they are now, detached from the important social and political issues of our time, especially those to which the scientific perspective has a substantial contribution. That’s it.

One area where Indian scientific journals might wisely intervene has to do with the idea that bovine-derived products are somehow special. This goes against all kinds of scientific understanding.

Ideally, such ideas remain confined to cultural practices and do not require scientific commentary for or against. did.

Once such ideas move beyond relatively harmless cultural signifiers into the political space that serves a particular political symbolism and affects our society, it justifies not taking a stand. It becomes difficult to do

Other problems at the intersection of science and politics include the current and continuing over-emphasis on ancient Indian texts as the true source of all scientific and other knowledge. The tension at the interface between rationality and rationality is inevitable. But the assassinations of rationalists Narendra Davolkar and Govind Pansale show that even perfectly rational views held by scientists can elicit murderous responses.

The average Indian citizen has no real way of knowing what science has to say on any particular issue.

Given this unfilled space, the scientific arena should be asked to deem it appropriate to point out when science is (mis)used for clearly political purposes. It may be reasonable. Editorials in scientific journals usually reach only a limited and specialized audience. However, when such interventions are reproduced in other, more popular media, they are taken seriously, especially if they are believed to be unbiased.

Therefore, editors of scientific journals, when commenting on political issues, should ensure editorial freedom only on those issues in which they are in a better position than everyone else. They must stand by the evidence, the scientific method, and rigorous analysis. All values ​​are central to scientific practice. Of course, all of this has nothing to do with a person’s political views.

Apart from these, however, we should stay away from the distractions of the broader discourse. Natural scientists as a group have nothing special to contribute to discussions on economics, unemployment, foreign affairs, social inequalities, or political activism as a whole.

Scientific journals have nothing to gain and much to lose when they comment on issues outside their expertise. In order for their views to be taken seriously in a field where they deserve to be taken seriously, not only the interventions they make but also what they say and how they say must be academically and accurately evaluated.

And for them to be seen as credible voices, they must resist the urge to swing by the political winds of the present, the past, or the future.

Gautam I. Menon is Professor at Ashoka University Sonepat and Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai. The views expressed here are his and do not represent his institution.