Lawerence Krauss has conducted 20 interviews with people who contributed to the recent book he edited, The War on Science (Luana Maroja and I coauthored chapter, a reworking of an earlier publication). I’ve listened to some but not all of the interviews, and many are good (you can find the collection here). But today I want to highlight Krauss’s interview with Yale physician and sociologist Nicholas Christakis for one reason: it rebuts some critics’ accusation that the book, which deals largely with “progressive” Leftist attacks on science, is deficient because it neglects a bigger threat to science: the one from the Right conducted by Trump and his minions. In fact, some benighted people have even claimed that our book was outmoded before it appeared on July 29. None of these critics, by the way, have read the book (see one example here).
I’ve responded to this criticism by making several of the points articulated by both Krauss and Christakis in the video below. First, they agree, along with me, that yes, Trump’s depredations on science right now are indeed a more serious threat to science than are the attacks from the Left. But so what? Most of us have criticized what Trump has done: I, for one, have called it out almost daily on my Hili posts. But for several reasons that does not mean that we should completely neglect attacks on science from the Left. One I’ve mentioned already: attacks from the Left come largely from within science, and are likely to persist for decades as students are propagandized by “progressive” faculty. (Trump, on the other hand, will be gone in 3.5 years, and one hopes that what he’s doing to science will be reversed, which it easily can be.) Plenty of people are in fact going after Trump for his right-wing blackmail, but who is going after the Left?
Second, the book was conceived and assembled before the Trump Mafia decided to use science funding as a blackmail to bend universities to its will. But the book didn’t change when Trump started the blackmail, and I think that’s okay, but the point of the book was simply to show from where in science the attacks on science are coming from.
Third, Leftist attacks on science are largely worldwide, while the attack on science from the Right is largely limited to the U.S.
Finally, Christakis points out at 7:20, there are attacks on science from both Right and Left, and the attack from the Right is more serious. Yet, as they both add beginning at 9:05, the attack on science by the Right was motivated in part by the behavior of “progressive” scientists from the Left! As Christakis says, “We made ourselves into political actors and so therefore became political targets. And we are an easy target because we have been hypocritical, we have been self-serving. . . . we definitely played a role in this. But I think a political commentator in the United States said that ‘Trump is the wrong answer to the right question’. . . . There’s a kernel there, as you and Niall [Ferguson] were talking about, where we did make ourselves into targets. And this is why, in my judgement, many of the authors of the book volume you edited—The War on Science-—have the credibility to push back against the right—because they also push back against the Left.” Christakis then explains why criticisms of the book outlined above are misguided.
In fact, I know many of the book’s authors, and all of them whose politics I know are on the Left side of the political spectrum (I can’t vouch for those I don’t know), and also think that what Trump is doing to science is execrable. We are not, as some imply, a pack of alt-right Nazi sympathizers!
All in all, I don’t take seriously the criticism that our book is either trivial or outdated. I find criticisms like those of Jonathan Howard at Science-Based Medicine (another person who didn’t read the book) both amusing and uninformed.
Those who want to address the book’s arguments should read the damn thing and actually deal with its contentions. So far, nobody has.
At any rate, I’ve always admired Christakis ever since he dealt so calmly with the unhinged Yale students enraged by the infamous Yale Halloween letter. Here he shows the pernicious effects that ideology can have on science, whether that ideology comes from either the Right or the Left. I haven’t yet read Christakis’s piece in the book, but look forward to it.
Side note :
This is a superb review of a video interview which, as good as they are, are not suited to life in the fast lane – I appreciate this because otherwise I’d never have listened – or, indeed, watched.
But this piece reads so sharp and concise!
The world needs more of this.
” … some benighted people have even claimed that our book was outmoded before it appeared on July 29.”
Outmoded it’s obviously not, but the timing is unfortunate, since it gives detractors such as Jonathan Howard in the SBM the perfect alibi for bloviating their excuses without addressing the content — which I predict will be the main mode of response even by those people who, eventually, have read the book before “reviewing” it. As I said in my comment on the SBM site, “If it had been published a year ago, its contents could have been identical and yet the entire basis of Howard’s ‘critique’ would have been non-existent.”
What’s frustrating is that we’ve heard about this book, and saw its contents trailed, for about a year now, which suggests its contributions were written by then. With a little urgency from the publisher, it could have appeared before Trump’s term began, perhaps even before the election, and this source of lame excuses could have been avoided altogether.
In regard to the Trump admin’s supposed deathblows to the progress of science, new headline/summary at Inside Higher Ed:
” After Deals, Research Funding Starts to Flow Back to Columbia, Brown
About half of the frozen federal research grants and contracts at Columbia resumed in the last week. Brown officials say payments should resume in 30 days. ”
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/08/01/research-funding-starts-flow-back-columbia-brown?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=9b34ecd2a8-DNU_2021_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-9b34ecd2a8-237208717&mc_cid=9b34ecd2a8
Trump’s current actions are just a recent manifestation of a long-standing antipathy to science among conservatives that is not restricted to the USA, as shown in the following data from 2019 (i.e., long before COVID). We do a disservice by defending the War on Science book by inadvertently minimizing the threat from the right, which is not restricted to funding and will not disappear with an election. Moreover, it will take a careful balancing act to challenge the excesses of the academic left without losing support for science from the political left. Time will tell if the book succeeds. Let’s hope so.
https://www.statista.com/chart/23248/trust-in-scientists-by-political-leaning/
Extremes of both left and right only accept “the science” when it suits their preferred narratives.
A few notes on liberals versus conservatives on “science”…
Biological differences between men and women – Liberals are generally crazy
Biological existence of race – Liberals are generally crazy
Heritability of human traits (including IQ) – Liberals are generally crazy
GMOs – US liberals and conservatives are sane. European liberals are crazy.
Fracking – Liberals are generally crazy
Vaccines – Some liberals (the public health types) are very sane. The Whole Foods types are crazy. Conservatives tend to be sane (except for Covid-19).
Evolution – A few creationists still exist. They are generally on the right.
Global Warming – Liberals are sane(r) in recognizing the problem. Crazy about “solutions”.
Note the I have not included nuclear power in my list because I am not sure if supporting nuclear power is crazy or not.
The is a quote from Razib Kahn on this. “Men are stronger than women (on average)” (https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2015/02/25/men-are-stronger-than-women-on-average/). Quote “Every now and then there is a debate on who is more “anti-science”, the Left or the Right. I’m not too interested in the details of that, but, a few years ago I expressed my skepticism to Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, that liberals were somehow reflexively more “pro-science.” I suggested to him, for example, that when it comes to aspects of the biological basis of human behavior, with the exception of homosexual orientation, liberals are highly resistant to accepting any differences across groups because of their adherence to social constructionism. Chris brushed this off, suggesting that the “science wars” were over, and even when it came to evolutionary psychology (broadly construed) the liberal Left had conceded to the best evidence on hand. I was not moved, because I’ve had years of exchange with many liberal Left folk who defy Chris’ assurance to me. This is most notable when it comes to sex differences, which are usually seen as less controversial, and evolutionarily should have some prior expectation due to dimorphism.”
I think that it is premature to conclude that at the end of the day (or rather the start of the new fiscal year (FY)), S&T federal basic research will end up being in the crapper, cut in half or more. Certainly the president’s proposed budget does that and the doge boys have driven a reduction in force (rif) process to fire civil service scientists, technicians, and engineers. I have watched the federal budgeting process since 1978 and this seems to be the worst situation yet (including nixon/stockman and Reagon) but only because in the past we could always rely on Congress to save the day either for the right reasons or simply to keep federal science money flowing to their district supporting jobs. So they had leverage with the President and used it through a well choreographed budget process performance over many years.
But this year is different as trump regularly threatens any republican who goes against him with being primaried from the right. And the anti-science piling on by much of the media during and since the pandemic as well as the placement of junior kennedy and his acolytes, as well as the Great Barrington crowd and their business/economy-first approach to public health in key science policy-making positions has discouraged the best and brightest from continuing in government and left great uncertainty for university research faculty, grad students, and post docs. (And similarly for other agencies including nasa, nsf, dept of energy…) The uncertainty has to make it hard to focus on work and even if the paychecks do not stop immediately because universities (at least used to be) are months behind in billing the fed for work accomplished leaving a six to nine month cushion of money on account, that uncertainty will drive the best and brightest to seek a more stable employment situation…unthinkable in my decades of observation!
So there is no stable model to predict from trumpworld on the political right regarding what funding there will be or what its focus will and this is doubly complicated by the ideological incursions on science and enlightenment thinking from the political left as discussed in the essays in Krauss’ War on Science compendium. The information in the the half dozen of so Krauss videos I have watched so far is very good, but it always annoys me that Krauss seems to dominate discussions in interviews anecdotally taking 60% or more of the time with his own words and takes, leaving me always wanting to hear more from the mind of a Dawkins or other star himself…but, frustration aside, the overall time watching and listening is well spent and rewarding.
“In a stark rejection of President Donald Trump’s plan to dramatically slash federally funded biomedical research in 2026, a Senate funding committee today approved a draft bill that instead gives the National Institutes of Health (NIH) a modest raise of $400 million. It also disregards Trump’s plan to gut the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The bill approved today by the Senate Committee on Appropriations includes $48.7 billion for NIH, or about 1% more than this year. That small of a bump is not something the biomedical community would normally celebrate, but Trump’s budget proposal would have cut the agency by $18 billion, or about 40%. The Senate bill also rejects White House proposals such as a massive NIH reorganization and a plan to cap the “indirect costs” added to NIH grants, which would drastically lower overhead reimbursement universities get for conducting research. The bill joins others pushing back on Trump’s proposed cuts to science agencies.”
https://www.science.org/content/article/boost-nih-budget-senate-panel-rejects-trump-s-plan-slash-agency
Yeah. We just have to wait for final budget vote and see who stands where. I would love to see some backbone when all of the harumpfs die down…. I had a congressman years ago who would sometimes, on controversial bills, vote in favor of the authorization and then later against the appropriation allowing him to brag to some low information constituents that he supported the authorization and in other meetings commiserate with other low information voters that he had voted against the appropriation….matching the tone of each meeting.
So we just have to wait until the fat lady sings.
“But what about the other tribe? They are far worse than we.” is a response far older than science and one requiring little, if any, thought. Scientists can rail about Trump all they like. Most are powerless to do anything about him. Their efforts are best directed toward things they can more likely change for the better. And as I mentioned the other day, I am not convinced he poses the greater long-term danger.
Received my copy of “The War on Science” about one hour ago. Looking forward to the read. There must be some reason that Ernst Jünger’s “Storm of Steel,” a new translation of “All Quiet on the Western Front,” and Christopher Lasch’s “The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics” showed up in the same box. I’ll be damned if I know. Perhaps best to linger in Spenser’s “Amoretti” and “Epithalamion.” Go, go, go, said the bird.
The strength of science is in its non-selective skepticism.
Bravo!
The situation won’t necessarily improve after Trump. The Project 2025 crowd are very active and appear to have captured the Republican Party.
Indeed. But the upside is that a lot of Republican electoral support is tied very closely to Trump’s cult of personality. It’s not clear that any other figure has yet emerged on the right who could easily tap into that level of personal devotion. Which means that, if the Dems are able to find a charismatic individual in 2028, they could very well win. At the moment that’s a big “if”, of course.
I strongly suspect then if/when iDJT crashes and burns, the wells of truth, rationality, and social trust will have been sufficiently poisoned (by “both sides”) that recovery will be very difficult. IMO if the current Dems do manage a full takeover in 3.5 years then the new regime’s behaviour and results will be about as ugly as the old one’s.
Yes the real weakness of the US political system in this respect is that the party that’s just lost a presidential election is effectively leaderless for the next three years, and therefore drifts without direction. And the Dems are a party that very badly needs leadership right now, not in three years’ time.
My copy of the excellent “The War Against Science” arrived a few days ago. The book is correctly titled because it refers to an academic attack on the very methodologies of Science by ideologues of what Helen Pluckrose calls “applied post-modernism”. Inasmuch as this attack has gone on for a decade or more within the academy, its damage could be much longer-lasting than the pauses in research funding—already beginning to reverse—which the Trump admin has used to pressure some universities. An object lesson of what the applied post-modernism onslaught might lead to is provided by the fate of modern biological science in the USSR: severely enfeebled for a generation after the fraud of Lysenkoism dominated its academic establishment for less than 20 years. From this perspective, the dangers highlighted in “The War Against Science” were, and to some extent still are, more insidious and more pervasive than Trump’s temporary use of research funding as a hostage.
I modestly disagree. In my opinion, the CR (Cultural Revolution) in China did more damage than Lysenkoism in the USSR. Both were very bad. However, I rate the CR as worse.
Although many people have probably forgotten about this book, as it was written nearly two decades ago, Chris Mooney’s “The Republican War On Science” took care of the Right quite well. I’d argue that it is just as relevant today, as it was back then. Just the names have changed.
Left and Right have (roughly) changed sides. As long a evolution was about the origins of the human species, the left was pro-evolution, and the right was (generally) anti-evolution.
Then evolutionary theory was applied to the sexes. At that point, the left became rabidly anti-evolution and the right (generally) embraced evolution.
A good article on this subject (that mentions Chris Mooney) can be found at “Men are stronger than women (on average)” (https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2015/02/25/men-are-stronger-than-women-on-average/). Quote
“To give a concrete example of how far this goes, there are many liberal Left people who won’t even accede to the proposition that men are, on average, stronger in terms of upper body strength than women. A few years ago this came up on social media, where a friend who has a biology background from an elite university, even expressed skepticism at this, when I was trying to get her to be open to behavioral differences between the sexes by starting with something I thought she would at least agree with as reasonable. When I saw the lack of unequivocal acceptance of this point I decided to opt out of the conversation. This was basically face to face with Left Creationism.”
Left Creationism is the dominant ideology of the academic world (of course, the ideology is not limited to the academic world)
The Yale students who attacked Nicholas Christakis were rewarded with prizes and awards. Yale bestowed its “Nakanishi Prize” on two of the student ringleaders, Alexandra Zina Barlowe and Abdul-Razak Mohammed Zachariah who attacked N. Christakis.