Your article is a good read, but I hope this book doesn't become too influential. I fear it will be used to justify the administration's actions.
I've been surprised by the amount of anger and frustration I've heard from my colleagues about the state of science. Your description of the book's motivation seems to stem from a similar source.
It appears there's a problem within academia where some professors feel entitled to impose their will on the university or the scientific community. When their ideas aren't adopted, they become disgruntled and adopt a "tear it all down" mindset. This isn't unique to professors; it seems to be a common human trait where people in charge of small spheres of influence believe they should have control over much larger ones.
This idea of small, competing empires was also discussed by Paul Krugman and Henry Farrell on Krugman's latest Substack. They made an interesting point about the role of **science fiction** in normalizing these types of authoritarian futures, essentially creating a world with more bosses and feudal-like structures.
I have not read this book and doubt I will because it will raise my blood pressure. But I have heard many of the authors positions on such issues as political correctness and trans rights among other subjects. While they have some examples of how political correctness can go to far, this is not a war on science and the idea that this is an existential threat to science is laughable. I suspect that at least some of this is sour grapes from authors such as Krauss, fired for sexual harassment, Coyne who was removed from the honorary board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation for publishing an article claiming, without evidence, that trans women were more sexually predatory than other women and that sex was binary, again without evidence. Dawkins and Pinker resigned as well probably due to their outspoken anti trans opinions.
What is the most disappointing and surprising is how anti science their anti trans positions are, considering that it should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that humans exist on a spectrum between very “feminine” and very “masculine” in behaviour. The biological reasons underlying this spectrum of behaviour have not been studied at all. So their position is ironically profoundly anti science.
So in fact, the war on science with regard to what can be published on what subjects, what is eligible for public funding etc. Is all from the right wing and these authors are now working in the service of the people dismantling science. Disgusting.
Good grief, Post Hill Press is a publishing house that focuses on "conservative politics" and Christian titles. And here we have privileged white guys Krauss, Coyne and Jordan Peterson trashing the left, helping the white supremacist anti-science Republican Party. Sickening.
Create the belief somewhere someone is going to believe it. Science is a constant, politics creates a belief around a constant then it is accepted by people who do not have an understanding of science or constants.
This article was well written. RFKJR is wreaking havoc upon the American people. Taking money from anti vaxxers . This war will continue, if it’s not stopped. American’s will die. He takes money from anti vaxxer’s. He can say no he doesn’t. According to the media. His cousin called him a predator because of the death’s of his brother David. He chose drugs over living a good life. According to sources in the media his brain is mush from all the heroin use. Media sources that is. God Bless and Have a beautiful weekend.
JFK and Jacqueline were also druggos who put poor people who were using medicine in jail whilst JFK continued using steroids even though it was discovered in the 1950s they were bad for you. The recklessness caused him to get honey-trapped, and he was a McCarthyist Cold Warrior worse than the neoconservatives (who think the U.S should only intervene to protect the Western colony of Israel, since Israel exists as a way for anti-Semites to get rid of Jews, as a way to continue British imperialism and to ensure French neo-imperialism, and so the Last Judgement can happen). The Kennedys have been blasted as privileged goodmen who act like WASPs: at least RFK Junior is an isolationist.
"Now I know what you’re gonna say: the 39 chapters in the book below (find it here on Amazon) deal exclusively with threats to science from the Left but, as we all know, at the moment the threats to science from the Right (aka, the Trump Administration) are far more serious. In the short run that may be the case, but in the long run, well, who knows, but the threats from the Left continue, and that’s for sure. So think of it as a bunch of scientists and other academics analyzing how our trade is being hurt by “progressives.” And, at the time we submitted our manuscripts to editor Lawrence Krauss (who added a nice introdution), Trump hadn’t yet started slicing federal grant money from “bad” universities (I see that Penn and Columbia have just caved)."
It's almost as if we on the Left (yes, I am a Democrat) aren't allowed to criticize what the Left is doing to science because it somehow plays into the hands of Trump. (I was told not to criticize Kamala Harris for the same reason.) I did not assemble the book, but I don't necessarily subscribe to "both-sideism."
And where did I say that the "existential threat to science" is from the Left? I criticize the Left because other people are already criticizing the right, and I've spent my career criticizing the existential threat to my field--evolutionary biology--coming from the Right, i.e., creationism.
And did you read our essay in the book? It is already published in the Skeptical Inquirer. It was about threats to evolutionary biology, and I note that while creationism used to be a major threat from the Right, it's now defanged and the threats are coming to us from mostly the Left.
Finally, if you are familiar with what I write (and you say you are), you'll know that nearly ever day in my morning news post I criticize the Trump administration for what I see as an illegal attempt to control universities by blackmailing them by threatening to withhold funds.
Go after Krauss if you absolutely need "both side-ism", but at least show some familiarity witgh what I've written on my website.
This is what you wrote just a few days ago on your blog, not last year, or years ago:
"By “our,” I mean a group of 39 essays (and more than 39 people) about how science is being corrupted by the Left.
Now I know what you’re gonna say: the 39 chapters in the book below (find it here on Amazon) deal exclusively with threats to science from the Left but, as we all know, at the moment the threats to science from the Right (aka, the Trump Administration) are far more serious. In the short run that may be the case, but in the long run, well, who knows."
An author is responsible for what they write. I don't need to go after Krauss, but perhaps you should have thought through your choice before agreeing to participate in an entirely one-sided volume, while completely ignoring the clear and present threats to science from the right. I worked on COVID and have been faculty at public universities for ~18 years, including 15+ in Georgia, and I can assure you that if an academic can't find threats to higher education and science from the right, then they have blinders on - willfully so. Yet, your framing "at the moment" suggests that you believe that the fundamental threat comes from the left or want to give yourself the wiggle room. I selected your blog precisely because the book is not out and I had tried to secure a table of contents in advance - you provided one & a helpful synopsis.
Of course there are threats from both sides, but if you read my post then you would see that I agree with Shawn Otto's take from 2016 on the threat asymmetry in a book of the same name albeit that takes quite a different tack. The threat from the right did not appear in 2025 from a vacuum - to claim as such is ahistorical and disconnected from evidence. The existential and authoritarian threat now builds on decades of growing antipathy. It has potency because of ties to power, industry ties, and policy intent. Yes, we should call out forces of illiberalism and anti-science when they appear. But, as an author who has a choice on where to place material why not ask: will this collection of essays focus entirely on a threat from one-side? If so, then perhaps you have found a club instead of a serious effort to tackle the titular claim.
As I said: this book is out of date the day it is published. I sometimes read your blog. We don't know each other very well - so all I can gather is that this volume reflects an intentional choice - despite COVID revisionism, Project 2025 and decades of antiscience massing on the right - to avoid the hard work of genuine dialogue.
Will I read the book? Yes. Is that likely to change my fundamental take? No - but I do hope that there are at least a few essays where I can learn a thing or two.
This is a presentation by Jerry Coyne and Luana Maroja moderated by Julia Shaletzky, a researcher in molecular therapeutics. To skip the ads, simply click Skip when prompted.
I don't care. Apart from being difficult on the eyes and ears, Jerry Coyne has discredited himself. He doesn't deserve any attention There are many other far more palatable sources of information about the topics he speaks on. In any case, the last time I looked, I had to scroll through streams of rubbish to get to anything worth reading. Does he still complain about the price of toothpaste?
Your article is a good read, but I hope this book doesn't become too influential. I fear it will be used to justify the administration's actions.
I've been surprised by the amount of anger and frustration I've heard from my colleagues about the state of science. Your description of the book's motivation seems to stem from a similar source.
It appears there's a problem within academia where some professors feel entitled to impose their will on the university or the scientific community. When their ideas aren't adopted, they become disgruntled and adopt a "tear it all down" mindset. This isn't unique to professors; it seems to be a common human trait where people in charge of small spheres of influence believe they should have control over much larger ones.
This idea of small, competing empires was also discussed by Paul Krugman and Henry Farrell on Krugman's latest Substack. They made an interesting point about the role of **science fiction** in normalizing these types of authoritarian futures, essentially creating a world with more bosses and feudal-like structures.
I have not read this book and doubt I will because it will raise my blood pressure. But I have heard many of the authors positions on such issues as political correctness and trans rights among other subjects. While they have some examples of how political correctness can go to far, this is not a war on science and the idea that this is an existential threat to science is laughable. I suspect that at least some of this is sour grapes from authors such as Krauss, fired for sexual harassment, Coyne who was removed from the honorary board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation for publishing an article claiming, without evidence, that trans women were more sexually predatory than other women and that sex was binary, again without evidence. Dawkins and Pinker resigned as well probably due to their outspoken anti trans opinions.
What is the most disappointing and surprising is how anti science their anti trans positions are, considering that it should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that humans exist on a spectrum between very “feminine” and very “masculine” in behaviour. The biological reasons underlying this spectrum of behaviour have not been studied at all. So their position is ironically profoundly anti science.
So in fact, the war on science with regard to what can be published on what subjects, what is eligible for public funding etc. Is all from the right wing and these authors are now working in the service of the people dismantling science. Disgusting.
Good grief, Post Hill Press is a publishing house that focuses on "conservative politics" and Christian titles. And here we have privileged white guys Krauss, Coyne and Jordan Peterson trashing the left, helping the white supremacist anti-science Republican Party. Sickening.
Create the belief somewhere someone is going to believe it. Science is a constant, politics creates a belief around a constant then it is accepted by people who do not have an understanding of science or constants.
This article was well written. RFKJR is wreaking havoc upon the American people. Taking money from anti vaxxers . This war will continue, if it’s not stopped. American’s will die. He takes money from anti vaxxer’s. He can say no he doesn’t. According to the media. His cousin called him a predator because of the death’s of his brother David. He chose drugs over living a good life. According to sources in the media his brain is mush from all the heroin use. Media sources that is. God Bless and Have a beautiful weekend.
JFK and Jacqueline were also druggos who put poor people who were using medicine in jail whilst JFK continued using steroids even though it was discovered in the 1950s they were bad for you. The recklessness caused him to get honey-trapped, and he was a McCarthyist Cold Warrior worse than the neoconservatives (who think the U.S should only intervene to protect the Western colony of Israel, since Israel exists as a way for anti-Semites to get rid of Jews, as a way to continue British imperialism and to ensure French neo-imperialism, and so the Last Judgement can happen). The Kennedys have been blasted as privileged goodmen who act like WASPs: at least RFK Junior is an isolationist.
Thank you.
You clearly didn't see my recent post where I note that the threats to science from the Right are more severe, but this book is about attacks on science by "progressives." I quote from https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2025/07/25/our-new-book-on-ideological-threats-to-science/
"Now I know what you’re gonna say: the 39 chapters in the book below (find it here on Amazon) deal exclusively with threats to science from the Left but, as we all know, at the moment the threats to science from the Right (aka, the Trump Administration) are far more serious. In the short run that may be the case, but in the long run, well, who knows, but the threats from the Left continue, and that’s for sure. So think of it as a bunch of scientists and other academics analyzing how our trade is being hurt by “progressives.” And, at the time we submitted our manuscripts to editor Lawrence Krauss (who added a nice introdution), Trump hadn’t yet started slicing federal grant money from “bad” universities (I see that Penn and Columbia have just caved)."
It's almost as if we on the Left (yes, I am a Democrat) aren't allowed to criticize what the Left is doing to science because it somehow plays into the hands of Trump. (I was told not to criticize Kamala Harris for the same reason.) I did not assemble the book, but I don't necessarily subscribe to "both-sideism."
And where did I say that the "existential threat to science" is from the Left? I criticize the Left because other people are already criticizing the right, and I've spent my career criticizing the existential threat to my field--evolutionary biology--coming from the Right, i.e., creationism.
And did you read our essay in the book? It is already published in the Skeptical Inquirer. It was about threats to evolutionary biology, and I note that while creationism used to be a major threat from the Right, it's now defanged and the threats are coming to us from mostly the Left.
Finally, if you are familiar with what I write (and you say you are), you'll know that nearly ever day in my morning news post I criticize the Trump administration for what I see as an illegal attempt to control universities by blackmailing them by threatening to withhold funds.
Go after Krauss if you absolutely need "both side-ism", but at least show some familiarity witgh what I've written on my website.
This is what you wrote just a few days ago on your blog, not last year, or years ago:
"By “our,” I mean a group of 39 essays (and more than 39 people) about how science is being corrupted by the Left.
Now I know what you’re gonna say: the 39 chapters in the book below (find it here on Amazon) deal exclusively with threats to science from the Left but, as we all know, at the moment the threats to science from the Right (aka, the Trump Administration) are far more serious. In the short run that may be the case, but in the long run, well, who knows."
An author is responsible for what they write. I don't need to go after Krauss, but perhaps you should have thought through your choice before agreeing to participate in an entirely one-sided volume, while completely ignoring the clear and present threats to science from the right. I worked on COVID and have been faculty at public universities for ~18 years, including 15+ in Georgia, and I can assure you that if an academic can't find threats to higher education and science from the right, then they have blinders on - willfully so. Yet, your framing "at the moment" suggests that you believe that the fundamental threat comes from the left or want to give yourself the wiggle room. I selected your blog precisely because the book is not out and I had tried to secure a table of contents in advance - you provided one & a helpful synopsis.
Of course there are threats from both sides, but if you read my post then you would see that I agree with Shawn Otto's take from 2016 on the threat asymmetry in a book of the same name albeit that takes quite a different tack. The threat from the right did not appear in 2025 from a vacuum - to claim as such is ahistorical and disconnected from evidence. The existential and authoritarian threat now builds on decades of growing antipathy. It has potency because of ties to power, industry ties, and policy intent. Yes, we should call out forces of illiberalism and anti-science when they appear. But, as an author who has a choice on where to place material why not ask: will this collection of essays focus entirely on a threat from one-side? If so, then perhaps you have found a club instead of a serious effort to tackle the titular claim.
As I said: this book is out of date the day it is published. I sometimes read your blog. We don't know each other very well - so all I can gather is that this volume reflects an intentional choice - despite COVID revisionism, Project 2025 and decades of antiscience massing on the right - to avoid the hard work of genuine dialogue.
Will I read the book? Yes. Is that likely to change my fundamental take? No - but I do hope that there are at least a few essays where I can learn a thing or two.
This is a presentation by Jerry Coyne and Luana Maroja moderated by Julia Shaletzky, a researcher in molecular therapeutics. To skip the ads, simply click Skip when prompted.
https://youtu.be/0vvd6hgdZ7M?si=9GljFB8UhHPKjAVD.
Wow, an hour watching and listening to Jerry Coyne? I'm sorry but I'm not really a fan of torture. :)
I bet you would learn a thing or two. 🤣
Nah, I followed him for years but that was a long time ago know. Jerry lost the plot.
BTW, he is on record as saying he can't bear to watch or hear himself speak so I have at least one person who agrees with me. |:
Don’t discount Luana Maroja, she is an evolutionary biologist, and Julia Shaletzky, the moderator. Both are great!
Besides, it’s not about Jerry Coyne, it’s about fundamental biology.
I don't care. Apart from being difficult on the eyes and ears, Jerry Coyne has discredited himself. He doesn't deserve any attention There are many other far more palatable sources of information about the topics he speaks on. In any case, the last time I looked, I had to scroll through streams of rubbish to get to anything worth reading. Does he still complain about the price of toothpaste?