Full text
I had thought science denial would hit a bottom — that once people began to experience the direct consequences of being wrong, of holding fast to beliefs that were demonstrably at odds with well-established science, they would drop those beliefs. It turns out I was wrong.
As a research scientist who’s also dedicated many years to science communication, coming to grips with this truth has been hard. It leaves us all facing difficult questions about how science and society can — or cannot — co-evolve when so many are opting out of science. How we address these questions may determine the fate of democratic societies in a world where excellence in science translates directly into both soft and hard power.
Science denial has little to do with science
My first experience with this kind of science opt-out (I’ll also call it “denial”) came in the late 2000s when I was writing a science blog for a major U.S. news outlet. Anytime I’d write a piece about climate change, the comments section would quickly fill up with the most aggressively ignorant opinions I’d ever encountered. People would claim the science was a hoax. They would claim scientists were only in it for the money. They would say things that even a freshman taking a planetary science class would know were glaringly wrong.
Being committed to the ideals of science communication, I did my best to engage with the commenters. I would explain what scientists knew about radiation transfer through an atmosphere (the basis of the greenhouse effect). I would lay out how hard-won evidence — from ice cores to tree rings — allowed us to unravel millennia of Earth’s response to changing atmospheric and ocean chemistry. Finally, I would detail how consensus works in science and how communities of researchers build a public understanding of their field.
None of it mattered.
One notable example of my encounter with science opt-out came when I tried engaging with a reader on a personal level. In response to a climate post, he had sent me an email telling me that I should be arrested for my climate lies. I replied and asked him about himself. What did he do for a living? He said he owned a dry-cleaning business. I asked some questions about the business. After a bit, I made a purposefully ridiculous claim about dry-cleaning chemicals. When he responded that I was clearly ignorant of the work he did every day, I said, “Yes, and that’s what your claims sound like to a climate scientist.”
The point was lost. Nothing would shake him from his beliefs. From this, and many other encounters, I learned that science denial is not about science — that reader and others I’ve engaged with expressed no curiosity about how planetary climates actually worked. Instead, it is about a kind of tribalism: If you identify as a member of certain groups — usually ones that have a particular political orientation — then you oppose certain kinds of science.
This opposition comes regardless of whether they know any of the deep (and often difficult) details required to make sweeping claims about that science. So, what might have been an interesting back-and-forth with a reader about what determines a planet’s temperature becomes a tiring slog through their fixations on Al Gore or long-refuted claims that 1970s climate science predicted “global cooling.”
Seeing was not believing
Despite these experiences, I still believed that once we all saw firsthand the reality that a field of science was predicting, denial would have to fall. Then came COVID-19. I was already watching the new resistance to vaccines rise with its all-too-predictable outcomes, like the 2017 measles outbreak at Disneyland . But with COVID-19, the willingness to ignore what was right before people’s eyes rose to a new level.
Before I go further, though, I want to be clear that the CDC and others in public health did make mistakes during this difficult period. It was, after all, a “novel” coronavirus and the first pandemic of the modern age. Also, I’m all in for discussions about whether and how some measures taken by public health officials went too far. If we don’t have these discussions, then how else can we learn what to do in the next pandemic? What we can’t argue over, however, is the reality of COVID-19 or the ability of the vaccines that scientists developed to save lives.
With COVID-19, just like with climate, lines were drawn, and tribalism kicked in. The famous cases of people dying of COVID-19 and still proudly proclaiming their resistance to a vaccine that might have saved them told the tale in no uncertain terms. They’d opted all the way out.
Now we live in a time when science denial inhabits the highest levels of power and receives broad acceptance. At the institutional level, climate science in the U.S. (along with many other types of science) is being decimated. The U.S. government lost 10,000 STEM PhDs in 2025 (compared to about 4,500 in 2024 ) in the wake of the present administration’s aggressive funding cuts to its own world-renowned scientific institutions. At the popular level, social media is awash with influencers routinely hosting guests claiming the Moon landings never happened.
As part of my work in science communication, I’ve appeared on podcasts associated with the “manosphere,” including The Joe Rogan Experience . Because of these appearances, I often have conversations with young men who have a clear interest in science, but who’ve also been led into strange vortices of science denial. “So, you really think we went to the Moon?” they ask. Or, “Scientists are always hiding the truth about stuff, right?”
I was not routinely fielding questions like these in 2010. There has been a shift in the cultural current. We now live in a kind of mirror-verse where opinions, if repeated often enough, can replace the decades of work needed to establish a scientific truth. Building off a narrative that falsely associates expertise with oppressive authority, influencers seeking clicks have driven viewers like the people I encounter into a haze of impossible claims presented as revealed truth.
So, where does it end? Surely there must be consequences for so many people opting out of science in a world that is, in fact, dominated by science.
The price of denial
Yes, there are consequences, but they aren’t occurring on an individual scale, as I expected them to a decade ago. Instead, they are playing out for society as a whole.
If you were interested in the cutting edge of science in 1600, you would have traveled to Italy. That is where wealthy government patrons were supporting Galileo and other scientists’ efforts to push the frontiers of telescope design, mechanics, and other fields. But if you were interested in the cutting edge of science in 1700, you did not go to Italy anymore. The baton of scientific excellence had already been passed to England and France. Likewise, if you wanted to be where the most important scientific discoveries were being made in 1900, you went to Germany, but by 1960, you would be on a plane to the U.S. instead.
The reasons for this ever-shifting localization of the best science have everything to do with a nation’s broad commitment to science. History shows that once a nation begins to slip in those commitments, the frontier of scientific progress moves elsewhere. Just as important, history shows that the nations making this commitment are the ones that prosper from the latest scientific breakthroughs.
It’s already becoming clear how the infection of science denial — of opting out of a commitment to science — is affecting the U.S. Because the current administration has embraced climate denial, it also remains in denial about the world’s ongoing energy transition away from fossil fuels. In 2025, global electric vehicle sales increased by 20% , but in the US, the growth rate was less than 10%. Today, the largest producer of new EVs is China.
Science and science leadership don’t stand still. When a society becomes infected with science denial, when its populace thinks it’s OK to opt out of treating science as a source of public truths, it elects leaders who lead with that vision of the world. But the bill always comes due. When those leaders slash science budgets for political reasons and create chaos in their own world-renowned scientific institutions, it becomes impossible to plan on the decades-long timescales required to ensure the nation is still a scientific leader well into the future.
Worse, the rest of the world is always watching. The best and brightest students from across the globe — the ones who used to come to your universities to learn and then stick around to start businesses — go where they will be supported and not harassed.
In the long run, the price you pay for science denial is the denial of your own scientific capacities.
This article Who pays the cost when Americans opt out of science? is featured on Big Think .
/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer_public/9d/f3/9df3e6fc-5c7b-48c3-b188-7178945996ac/huntsman_inside_lampshade.jpg)
Comments
No comments yet — be the first to weigh in 👇
No comments yet. Be the first!