'Viewpoint Diversity' and The Politicization of Science

Ongoing calls by the Trump administration for ‘viewpoint diversity’ are a veiled excuse for politicization of science & must be contested.

The insistence on viewpoint diversity in higher education is in the news, but not in the way one might think. Listening to and welcoming diverse points of view is a hallmark of modern universities. But that is not what the Trump administration means when it insists that public and private universities nationwide institute a particular version of viewpoint diversity – or else.

The weaponization of viewpoint diversity is similar to efforts – more than 40 years ago – to demand ‘equal time’ for creationism in science classrooms. That effort eventually failed. Now, viewpoint diversity would usher in political litmus tests – measuring theories and hypotheses not against data and evidence but against political whim and expediency. It might seem that viewpoint diversity is targeted exclusively to perceived opponents in the humanities; that is not the case.

As but one example, the acting US district attorney for the District of Columbia recently wrote to the editors of CHEST, a specialized journal committed to advancing patient care with a focus on pulmonary care, critical care and sleep medicine, demanding that they respond to the supposed absence of ‘competing viewpoints’ in their journal. The incident seems bizarre but is also consequential.

Do we want non-trained experts to have an equal voice in ‘CHEST’ or in other science, engineering, and medical research journals and departments? And if so, on what basis do politicians decide which viewpoints to include if they themselves do not have relevant expertise? By analogy: do we want non-licensed individuals performing surgery and must we welcome aviation skeptics in the cockpits of planes?

As innocuous as it sounds, insisting on viewpoint diversity would usher in a politicization of science that would put us at risk – taking the guardrails off the give and take between theory and evidence that underpins science and discovery.

The Earth is round. But, what if you said it was flat and insisted people take you seriously? You wouldn’t be alone. People are saying it – and not just pre-pandemic Kyrie Irving. For a flat-earther, it might be frustrating to meet scientists who insisted the Earth was round and would not give equal time to your viewpoint.

Who do they think they are?

Why are they gatekeeping Earth shapes?

Balanced viewpoints between a round vs. flat Earth.

Absurd? Of course. But the Trump administration’s insistence that higher education install viewpoint diversity in its ranks as part of an ongoing intimidation campaign directed at experts and expertise has a logical consequence: flat-earthers should have an equal voice in geoscience departments, creationists should teach evolutionary biology, and those who insist that vaccines don’t prevent disease should be hired into public health departments.

The reality is – scientists hold many different opinions. But all (or nearly all) agree on a central premise: the data measured in the world we live in matters. Making sense of complex data in the context of working paradigms is the difference between selecting a drug that works to cure cancer or doesn’t or between a plane design that flies or remains grounded.

Reasonable people can have good-faith arguments about priority setting. What is the right balance of training across disciplines? How much should we reorganize higher education around professional skills and/or critical thinking? Asking these questions might lead to different answers for a professor trying to develop a syllabus or a College deciding on a program of study or a national accrediting agency thinking about expectations that must apply across a range of institutions.

But despite what the Trump administration tells you, higher education institutions – both public and private – remain committed to teaching students how to think and not insisting on what they think.

The process of teaching students how to think critically enables them to rule out – through logic, reasoning, and evidence – certain ideas as being incompatible with reality. Do we really want to include a ‘viewpoint’ that the Earth is flat or that vaccines can’t reduce disease incidence? Once students understand the method by which hypotheses and theories come into contact and conflict with empirical evidence, they will – on their own – find good reason to reject certain ideas.

The Trump administration’s insistence on viewpoint diversity has a goal in mind: control over what is taught, studied, and communicated in institutions all across the United States. Already, they have taken concrete steps to limit more than just viewpoints – cancelling research programs based on keywords, themes (e.g., on misinformation), and topic areas (e.g., research related to mRNA vaccines).

Science, engineering, and health research taking place at universities throughout the U.S. remains the envy of the world. The American higher education ecosystem attracts researchers trained both in America and abroad, committed to the scientific method, who strive to understand principles of how matter and life works at scales from atoms to the Earth system, many of whom are equally committed to translating those insights into innovations that fuel America’s economy.

Higher education can do more to broaden access to opportunities to the next generation of researchers. Higher education must be open to disagreement that remains essential to fueling new discoveries. But our process of training and discovery cannot lose sight of something fundamental: in a marketplace of ideas forged against the fire of evidence, not all viewpoints are in fact equal.