This November, We Need to Vote for Science
Illustration made by CPR staff writer Nicolas Lama.
The Scientific American has never formally endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175 years of circulation — until now.
Via an announcement on Twitter, the magazine’s editorial board stated, “Instead of thinking about whether to vote Democratic or Republican in the upcoming U.S. election, think about voting to protect science instead of destroying it.” The magazine’s choice to break nearly two centuries worth of tradition by urging its readers to vote for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden underscores a fundamental component of this year’s election: the role science plays within our government is on the ballot, and our vote will determine the health and progress of our country.
Throughout history, the U.S. federal government has had an enormous influence on science. From congressional funding of scientific research within institutions such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation to the widespread investment in the Space Race during the 1960s, the U.S. government has been one of the largest patrons and defenders of science across human history; so much so that most Americans highly prioritize being a world leader in scientific achievement more than many other countries’ citizens. However, in 2020, the country’s scientific leadership is at risk of being completely eclipsed by an incumbent administration that openly erodes the role and support of science within our federal government. In a time when we need it the most, we need to protect science.
Science has been at the forefront of political discussion during this election, from economic recovery, to public health guidance, to university reopenings. However, the contrast between the two major party candidates’ commitments to following scientific evidence could not be more stark. Democratic nominee Joe Biden has repeatedly said he will listen to our nation’s top scientists, and has offered fact-based plans to protect our health, environment, and future on this planet. On the other hand, Republican nominee President Donald Trump has openly waged war on science, repeatedly ignored experts in handling the coronavirus pandemic, and continually rejected scientific evidence in addressing climate change. This ideological divide presents voters with a simple choice: do we want a federal government that vows to restore our country’s history of supporting science, or a federal government that continues rejecting evidence and scientific expertise?
Trump’s denial of scientific evidence has caused great damage to Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. The November presidential election comes at a time in which nearly every state in the country is seeing a rise in coronavirus cases. The Trump administration has responded to the public health crisis by downplaying the severity of the pandemic and rejecting public health guidance, which has led to the embarrassment of the United States on a global stage. Trump’s lack of leadership and commitment to science could not be more apparent: as of October 2020, over 8.5 million U.S. citizens have been infected with the virus, upwards of 224 thousand Americans have died, and our country’s death rate remains unparalleled elsewhere in the world.
Even still, Trump continues to dismiss scientific advice. Trump has repeatedly stated that the virus will “miraculously disappear,” launched blistering attacks on coronavirus testing, and embraced the fringe theory of herd immunity. His negligent attitude towards wearing face masks in public and holding packed rallies that violate the CDC’s social distancing guidelines has had an immeasurable impact on how seriously Americans view the pandemic. The administration’s attempts to interfere in scientific decision-making and sideline scientific experts such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, who Trump has derided as “a disaster,” is incredibly alarming. Trump’s rejection of science could not be more clearly illustrated than by the news of the recent outbreak at the White House, which resulted in Trump’s own positive COVID-19 diagnosis and subsequent hospitalization. Both Republicans and Democrats have criticized Trump’s reaction to our public health crisis as being blatantly disrespectful and dangerous.
President Trump removing his mask after his return to the White House from Walter Reed Hospital. Photo by World Stock Market.
On top of the COVID-19 pandemic, the next president’s commitment to science contains larger implications in how the U.S. leads the world in combating climate change, an urgent threat that our current federal government has continually undermined. Scientists estimate that in the absence of major action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures are on track to rise by an average of 6oC (10.8°F). If only the government enacted evidence-based plans, this environmental catastrophe could be mitigated and the lives of millions of Americans could be protected.
Throughout American history, when the federal government has adequately addressed environmental issues, there have been positive results. In 1963, after the first in-depth scientific study of air pollution across the country, the U.S. implemented its first comprehensive federal law designed to control air quality on a national level. Since its implementation, the positive effects of the “Clean Air Act of 1963” have been widely studied, with annual benefits including 370,000 avoided premature deaths, 189,000 fewer hospital admissions for cardiac and respiratory illnesses, and net economic benefits of up to $3.8 trillion for the economy. The U.S. has historically listened to scientific experts to enact positive changes for the American people, and under the right leadership, we can do it again.
Under the Trump administration, however, the U.S. has blatantly disregarded environmental science and abandoned its role as a global environmental leader. The federal government has reversed nearly 100 environmental rules at the request of major fossil fuel companies, including provisions within the Clean Air Act that have dictated how major sources of hazardous air pollutants are regulated for decades. The Trump administration has also replaced scientists on the Environmental Protection Agency advisory boards with industry representatives and has crippled the country’s preparations to combat environmental disasters. During his term as president, Trump has demonstrated an ongoing denial of the reality of climate change and the threat it poses to generations of Americans. Recently, when faced with responding to the massive wildfires in the state of California—a clear indication that the consequences of climate change are happening now, not in some distant future—Trump has repeatedly blamed bad “forest management” for causing the fires and has said “I don’t think science knows” about climate change, when science clearly does know. Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, an international covenant designed to respond to the global climate change threat, further alienating the U.S. on the global stage. The threat of climate change and environmental disaster is too large to not have a federal government that takes it seriously.
Joe Biden is the clear advocate for science that Americans need after four years of constant science denial and rejection by our federal government. By electing Biden, the U.S. will have a president with a record of following scientific data and making decisions guided by evidence-based reasoning. Along with Scientific American’s unprecedented endorsement, Biden has received support from a broad coalition of science groups and activists, including the National Wildlife Federation, the League of Conservation Voters, 350 Action, and climate leader Greta Thunberg. Unlike Trump, Biden solicits scientific expertise and has turned that knowledge into solid policy proposals, offering voters comprehensive plans to control COVID-19, improve health care, combat climate change, and build sustainable infrastructure. With Biden as our president, the U.S. will have a leader who will restore the use of implementing scientific reasoning in our nation’s policy making.
If Trump wins reelection, the role our nation has served in the support and advancement of scientific progress could be fundamentally eroded. When the government has listened to scientists, our nation has accomplished great things. Now more than ever, we need a return to science-based approaches to COVID-19, climate change, and public health, and voting for Biden is the first step in that restoration.
If you don’t believe me, just ask Trump himself, who most recently warned his supporters at a Nevada rally: Biden would “listen to the scientists” if elected. Yes, President Trump. We need to vote for a president who is committed to protecting the health and safety of our country and planet. We need to vote for science.
Nicolas Lama is a staff writer at CPR and a first year at Columbia College planning on studying Economics, Political Science, and East Asian Languages. He is passionate about American politics and environmental activism, and in his free time, you can find him surfing or paddle boarding near his home in sunny South Florida.