When Ideology Undermines Science: Pseudoscience and Politics

Introduction: Science, Politics, and Ideology

Science is in no way immune from politics, ideology, or corruption. In a democratic society, though, science functions much as the media does: it exists separate from the state in order to preserve the objectivity that is so fundamental to its very existence. When politics infiltrates science, the results can be disastrous. The state could silence scientific data, for example, or throw funding at science dedicated to nefarious projects rather than maximizing science's potential to create meaningful change, social progress, and breakthroughs across multiple areas of research. In the Soviet Union, the fusion of science and politics led to serious and lasting consequences, including "toxic waste dumps, overuse of pesticides, and fossil fuel pollution," not to mention rampant superstitions and a lingering "fascination with medieval charlatans" (Josephson 613).

Americans may feel themselves immune to the same consequences of ideologically driven science. Unfortunately, history has proven otherwise, as Christian fundamentalism has infiltrated politics since before the birth of the nation. Religious politicians and lobbying groups, like totalitarian Soviet leaders, have attempted to discredit science and are contributing to the "dumbing down of America" (Williams 1). According to Williams, no other wealthy or technologically advanced society struggles to justify scientific inquiry or fights to keep religion out of public schools. In the NOVA documentary Intelligent Design on Trial, the filmmakers point out that "all other major world religions have made their peace with science," and that evangelical and fundamentalist Christians in the United States stand alone with their dangerously backward beliefs. Religion is a valid part of culture and human identity formation, but it has no role to play in either politics or science. At the very least, the danger of mixing science, politics, and religion is a decrease in scientific literacy and the celebration of ignorance.

Pseudoscience in Practice: From Eugenics to Anti-Vaccination

Several examples illustrate the specific dangers associated with an ideologically driven method of scientific inquiry. One example is related to environmental science: the denial of anthropogenic climate change has funneled valuable resources that could be spent on research and instead channels those resources toward public relations campaigns, lawyers, and other unnecessary ends. Another example may be even more sinister, although it is thankfully rooted in history — eugenics. At the turn of the twentieth century, the eugenics movement sought to selectively apply what was then known about biology and reproduction to racist ideology (Alexander). Like other pseudosciences, eugenics masqueraded as genuine scientific inquiry but was really characterized by a clever manipulation of scientific jargon to appeal to the racist sentiments of the time.

Contemporary pseudoscience has shifted direction toward issues like anti-vaccination and opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Whereas arguments against GMOs have some rational basis regarding ethics and food security, the anti-vaccination movement has long been discredited and yet remains salient. The anti-vaccination movement threatens public health, presenting one of the clearest examples of why it is dangerous to mix ideology with science.

Just as the anti-evolution and pro-intelligent design camp profiled in Intelligent Design on Trial cleverly rebranded "creationism" as "intelligent design," anti-vaccination advocates have resorted to rebranding and other tactics, including "skewing science, shifting hypotheses, censoring dissent, and attacking critics" (Kata 3778). Many anti-vaxxers, as they are called, revert to claims of personal privacy and sovereignty, just as creationists claim that their religious beliefs are being threatened by state encroachment into science curricula ("What's behind the 'anti-vax' movement?"). Although the anti-vax movement is less about Christian fundamentalism and more about simple pseudoscience and irrationality, both examples show how dangerous it can be to fuse ideology and science at all.

Intelligent Design and the Rebranding of Creationism

Belief in UFOs or paranormal activity may be fine for entertainment or even inquiry in fields like the humanities, but science is defined by its rigorous methodologies. Science has threatened to undermine political and religious ideologies for centuries. Galileo and Copernicus undermined the authority of the Catholic Church to control what people believed about the universe. Instead of welcoming scientific inquiry, the Church clamped down until it could no longer — just as the Soviet government clamped down on free scientific inquiry until it was no longer a viable political entity. Because science exposes truth, it often threatens superstitious beliefs. When those beliefs form the foundation of a seat of power — whether a government or a church — a battle is likely to ensue.

Creationism rebranded as intelligent design is still religion; it is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Proponents of intelligent design cling to the belief that their framework constitutes a genuine scientific theory and try to sell that story in order to legitimize their ideology. Yet scientific theories evolve over years, incorporating hundreds if not thousands of independent, peer-reviewed empirical studies conducted with rigor and valid methodologies. When asked to illustrate why intelligent design is "scientific," one proponent interviewed in Intelligent Design on Trial drew a few names in the sand — direct references to the Christian Bible, "Mary" and "John" — and claimed that those names would not have "evolved" there but were placed there by an intelligent being. The analogy makes no sense. A complex organism is not a design drawn in the sand. The argument of "irreducible complexity" is likewise irrational, a point proven by scientists who had to spend valuable time demonstrating how bacterial flagella have in fact been reduced to lower orders of complexity to serve evolutionary ends.

Conclusion: Keeping Science Separate from Ideology

When non-scientific ideas, concepts, and theories are permitted to obscure science, the results are detrimental to all people. Pseudoscience leads to irrationality and ignorance. When people rely on unproven herbal remedies instead of evidence-based medicine, they could die. When parents refuse to vaccinate their children, they risk causing outbreaks of infectious disease. When governments control scientific inquiry, they can develop technologies and methodologies that lead to disasters like Chernobyl or atrocities like the eugenics programs the Nazis developed. The only role ideology has to play in science is to provide the impetus to remain as open-minded as possible. Otherwise, religion and other non-scientific frameworks need to remain separate — taught in humanities or anthropology classes, not in science classrooms.

Works Cited

Alexander, Will. "Eugenics and Animal Science." The Alexandrian, Vol. 3, Issue 1.

Corral-Verdugo, Victor, Martha Frias-Amenta, and Daniel Gonzalez-Lomeli. "On the Relationship Between Antisocial and Anti-Environmental Behaviors." Population and Environment, Vol. 24, Issue 3, Jan. 2003.

Hecht, David K. "How to Make a Villain." Endeavour, Vol. 36, No. 4, Dec. 2012.

Intelligent Design on Trial. Documentary film. NOVA/PBS, 2007.

Josephson, Paul R. "Soviet Scientists and the State: Politics, Ideology, and Fundamental Research from Stalin to Gorbachev." Social Research, Vol. 59, No. 3, Fall 1992.

Kata, Anna. "Anti-Vaccine Activists, Web 2.0, and the Postmodern Paradigm." Vaccine, Vol. 20, Issue 25, 28 May 2012.

"What's behind the 'anti-vax' movement?" BBC News.

Williams, Ray. "Anti-Intellectualism and the 'Dumbing Down' of America." Psychology Today, 7 July 2014.

Wolfe, Robert M., and Lisa K. Sharp. "Anti-Vaccinationists Past and Present." British Medical Journal, Vol. 325, No. 7361, 24 Aug. 2002.