Politicized Science is Dangerous

Response to John Murphey

As you correctly pointed out, American eugenic policies were fueled by racism and contempt for immigrants in the early 20th Century. The ideas shared in this article provide significant insights on the history of eugenic policies and serve as a cautionary example in public health systems and policies. The creation of public health policies in today’s society is seemingly following the pattern of early American eugenic policies. Crichton (n.d.) postulates that early American eugenic policies were seemingly focused on population control of undesirable populations. Modern public health systems are following this pattern as policies are fueled by the interests of a few private entities and individuals at the expense of the many. Therefore, today’s public health policies seem to focus on serving the interests of sponsors at the expense of populations. As suggested by Wilensky & Teitelbaum (2020), Private individuals and entities as well as politicians can make public policy decisions in the healthcare field for their own benefit. However, the missing point in your article is the lack of scientific or factual basis in eugenics policies and modern public health policies. The failure to consider scientific or factual evidence contributes to policies that serve the interests of a few rather than for populations.

Response to Dalton Bagwell

I agree with your view that the benefits of bioethics should be taken into consideration when examining its suitability in modern public health systems. It is true that bioethics is beneficial as much as it is disadvantageous, especially to certain groups of people. The benefits and drawbacks of bioethics in the public health system are seemingly influenced by how it is used. When used for the benefit of the many, it is beneficial and vice-versa. Therefore, the establishment of regulations is essential to safeguard the benefits of bioethics while avoiding its disadvantages. While you point out the significance of strict regulations in relation to bioethics, the history of American eugenics policies shows the dangers of bioethics, especially when politicized. Your article should have highlighted how the history of American eugenics policies provides a cautionary example of the dangers of politicizing public health policies. As noted by Crichton (n.d.), the involvement of politicians in the policymaking process can sometimes create problems as they serve the interests of a few people. Politicians and leaders sometimes make public policy decisions and undertake measures for their own benefit while silencing any criticism. In essence, politicizing public health policies only works for the benefit of private individuals and politicians (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2020).

Response to Sydney Shepherd

As you stated, Crichton (n.d.) points out the dangers of mixing politics with science despite the significance of government intervention through policymaking. Even though government intervention is essential in prevention and mitigation of crises, policymaking can become a source of problems when politicized. Generally, public health systems and policies are mostly influenced by policymakers and politicians (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2020). The history of American eugenics policies shows that policymaking in the public health field can be driven by the interests of wealthy stakeholders. While you point out this fact, you should have highlighted how wealthy stakeholders influence policymaking for their own interests at the expense of many populations. This implies that the involvement of wealthy stakeholders in this process provides the avenue for the politicization of public health policymaking processes. Wealthy stakeholders do not necessarily serve the interests of all populations as they are biased. Moreover, you should have highlighted how the involvement of wealthy stakeholders provides an avenue for lack of scientific/factual basis in public health policies. Science or factual evidence is overlooked as policymaking processes are sometimes skewed in favor of wealthy stakeholders.