| Americans have a complicated relationship with science. As state after state implemented social distancing orders, some commentators pointed to this widespread acceptance of epidemiological guidelines as a reason for hope. “Do we believe in science? Go outside and you’ll see the proof that we do everywhere you look,” wrote science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson at The New Yorker last week. “We’re learning to trust our science as a society.”
Who is “we,” precisely? The anti-lockdown protesters who have stormed state capitals in the past week, backed in part by right-wing donors, don’t seem all that sold that reopening safely will require a certain number of tests per day, a certain number of hospital beds available, and a certain drop in cases over time.
It can be challenging to “believe science” when you’re socially isolated, maybe even facing financial ruin. It can be challenging even for the most rational among us. As Dave Eggers pointed out Sunday through a satirical Q&A in The New York Times, the various coronavirus orders and scientific recommendations, as filtered through government officials, have often been bewildering and even contradictory. And as Ben Franta, a Ph.D. student in history of science at Stanford, tweeted recently, the “believe science” mantra can be classist; moreover, “sexism, racism, & eugenics were all scientific.” Science isn’t safe from bias, and it can get things wrong.
So perhaps it is not enough to ask people to “believe science.” As TNR’s Kate Aronoff argued last week, this mantra has been no more effective in combating coronavirus denial than it has been against climate denial, in part because it misidentifies the true source of denialism. “Coronavirus denialism and climate denialism aren’t the product of skeptical masses but disingenuous elites,” she writes. That is, it’s important to distinguish between genuine grassroots resistance and the funding of denialism by corporate interests. “Besting the likes of Mitch McConnell and the Koch apparatus—whether on Covid-19 or the climate—won’t come down to proving them wrong with enough science. It’ll mean calling out and taking on the corporations whose best interests are served by spreading doubt and disinformation.”
We already know about the massive influence of corporate funding of climate denial. We are only starting to understand how similar dynamics may be operating with regard to coronavirus response. It’s no wonder we’ve become a nation of skeptics; we just can’t agree on what to be skeptical of.
—Heather Souvaine Horn, Deputy Editor | 