Nature
At some point, over-politicizing science will lead to the blending of the two disciplines. Unfortunately, politics will prevail.A recent article in Nature lamented Trump’s policy decisions to cut funding for specific government organizations and his call for investigations into studies laden with gender-based language. The scientific elite found these initiatives so unacceptable that some scientists are now threatening to leave the United States — an act they frame as a protest.
The mere existence of the option to address gender issues in science indicates that efforts to politicize science were already well underway. Nature‘s outrage at the Trump Administration’s actions reinforces this assumption. Trump’s push against gender-based language is an act of depoliticization, not an attack on objective science. Pronouns serve as a sign of political allegiance rather than markers of gender identity — they are not grounded in empirical evidence, and there is nothing ‘scientific’ about pronouns. Analogous to tagging a protein with a fluorescent marker for identification, scientists have labeled their most politically charged studies with gender terminology. The Left made it remarkably easy to distinguish politically motivated research from genuine scientific inquiry.
Nature also recently published a ‘World View‘ article by Dr. Eric Reinhart. According to his profile on X Dr. Reinhart is a social psychiatrist, political anthropologist, and psychoanalytic clinician. In his article, he asserts:
“The real crisis is not that public health — which is fundamentally about policies dictating the distribution of resources required to protect human life — has been politicized. It is that it has not been politicized nearly enough.”
A close reading of Dr. Reinhart’s essay reveals an intent to encourage scientists to amalgamate the two philosophies — science and politics — and advocate radical political positions. This assertion presumes that science — and the decisions and implementations derived from its guidance — are infallible. Furthermore, it commits a fallacy by blatantly disregarding alternative political philosophies regarding the most effective resolution approach. Reinhart is ignoring the nuance.
For one, there can be agreement over the most contentious scientific problems, such as climate change, but there can be disagreement over how to handle them politically. However, alignment on the science is not enough for the politically radical — it also requires compliance with their solutions. Furthermore, ethical dilemmas present unique challenges when addressed solely from a scientific perspective — for example, determining when life begins (at conception or in the womb). According to science, life begins at conception — does this justify the pro-life position to Dr. Reinhart? Politics and worldviews will dictate how people respond to information and support policy. Science aims to provide a level of objectivity; politics allows for interpretation. Making science more political will not change the facts.
Reinhart’s tone assumes that centralized government-based solutions are optimal. Evidence from government-run initiatives both in the U.S. and abroad shows consistent failure — a fact evident without needing a PhD. U.S. programs like Veterans Affairs, Medicaid, and Medicare starkly expose the pitfalls of universal healthcare. The near-revolutionary protests in the UK over healthcare highlight collapse of these policies in other regions of the globe. Similarly, environmental agencies have imposed regulations in the name of science that stifle competition, raise prices, and hinder progress. Decades of history confirm that centralized policies have repeatedly failed in practice.
Centralizing policy inevitably leads to the centralization of ideas and solutions. The same principles that drive free markets drive scientific inquiry, discovery, and new technologies. By decentralizing the STEM fields, expertise naturally spreads to individuals best suited to address complex issues. The free market approach to STEM allows people to work within their knowledge and interests to serve society, fostering true advancement. A look at the history of science and technology breakthroughs in the United States demonstrates this principle.
<img alt captext="Nature” class=”post-image-right” src=”https://conservativenewsbriefing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/politicizing-science.jpg” width=”300″>The scientific and medical establishment in the United States faces fewer regulatory restrictions than in many other countries. Is it a coincidence that the U.S. far outpaces the rest of the world in research and development? China, which ranks second, remains a distant competitor. How would adopting a centralized approach to scientific inquiry, along with prioritizing gender-inclusive language, contribute to preserving the United States’ competitive edge?
To entertain Nature‘s proposal, one must first accept the premise — a premise that remains subject to debate. Reinhart outlines an extensive list of policies premised on believing that a government led by scientific technocrats is best equipped to address political challenges. Implicit in this approach is the notion that the so-called scientific elite harbor reservations about the capacity of the American electorate to resolve issues through the democratic process.
Additionally, Nature assures the reader that the push to politicize science is solely Trump’s fault. During the Biden administration, the media hailed Dr. Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, as a symbol of health leadership and the face of the Department of Health and Human Services. Never mind that Levine was only the assistant secretary for HHS. The head of the department, Xavier Becerra, barely left an impression. Levine’s role was more about making a political statement than advancing public health.
Reinhart criticizes the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as political, a deeply contrarian figure who gained support as he challenged the establishment. The medical establishment was in the government’s pocket during the COVID pandemic, a period marked by a radical failure in policy. RFK Jr.’s confirmation is an ideological reaction to a government-led fiasco. A sign that voters reject Nature and Reinhart’s proposals.
Despite his opposition to specific scientific innovations like vaccines, RFK Jr. has never advocated removing them from the medical schedule during his tenure. Instead, he has promised transparency and decentralized control, returning power to the people — a stance that resonated with many. However, this idea is controversial for the Left — that individualism and autonomy are human rights, not political policy.
A culmination of the points above leads to an alarming subtly of Nature‘s push: whether intentional or not, the call to politicize science is a direct homage to Statism. The promotion of collectivism and centralized control — even the uproar over the removal of Marxist-tribalistic gender language — under the guise of ‘science’ portends Murray Rothbard’s warning in The Anatomy of the State:
“In the present more secular age, the divine right of the State has been supplemented by the invocation of a new god, Science.”
Nature is not interested in reconciling scientific disputes through free-market solutions or individual action. Draconian policy, where questioning technocrats is considered a sacrilege, creates a utopia for intellectuals. As Rothbard illustrates, state-driven societies grant intellectuals privileges unavailable in market-driven systems, where practical results outweigh abstract theorizing. In government, intellectuals secure influence and stability by legitimizing state authority rather than challenging it. Market forces, which demand accountability and competition, threaten this privileged status.
Pushes for centralization imply that policy should be managed by government on the pretense of “science” making it easier to sideline dissenting voices. History is replete with examples of state-backed intellectuals failing disastrously, from Lysenko’s pseudoscientific agriculture policies and Mao’s Great Leap Forward, which serve as stark reminders of the dangers of state enforced science. Government shortcomings are not isolated incidents; they are systemic, impacting entire populations. Such examples underscore why science should inform political decisions, not dictate them.
For the Left, politics is their religion, and science their doctrine. The election of Donald Trump and his cabinet replaced their gods of science with idols. Nature calls for the abandonment of neutrality in the name of politics — transforming it into an ideological crusade.
At some point, over-politicizing science will lead to the blending of the two disciplines. Unfortunately, politics will prevail. It is easier to politicize science than it is to science politics. Politics wields the authoritative power of government. The ruling body can silence those who disagree, shutting down scientific disputes or discord — debate is integral to science.
Science is typically conducted in controlled environments and every study has limitations; these experiments rarely translate into action when applied to populations. Long-term outcomes can be impossible to predict. Good science is predicated on the ability to tease it apart and refine it. Iron sharpeneth, iron.
Nature‘s aversion to these principles reveals that its priorities lean more toward political activism than genuine scientific advancement. President Trump, in contrast, was elected on a platform of scientific transparency, empowering individuals to make their own decisions — this is the American way.
Matthew Williams is a compliance and technical investigator for pharma and is a freelance writer focusing on healthcare and pharma reform. Follow him on X @Back2TheCenter.
