A lot of people complain politics is in everything these days. They are right, politics is in everything these days… even medical journals. The better points really are: Is this new? And how pervasive really is “in everything”? Is that really hyperbole?
The Lancet last week released a report on “public health and policy in the Trump era.” Its first key finding is that Donald Trump “politicized” science. It asserts Trump’s action “posed a uniquely urgent threat to health.” Oh, really… The comment seems a more than slightly political position for a medical journal.
So, is it okay for a medical trade journal to stray from medicine? Who is injecting politics into what? Why should we care? Well, we should care. We should care because we hear repeatedly we should follow the science. That is sound advice when scientists are disciplined enough to hold their commentary to their area of expertise. So, is Lancet a journal of economic policy? Maybe not…
Where does science end and politics begin?
The Lancet, medical journals, report says, “Public Policy and Health in the Trump Era,” offers a host of “science-led” proposals. It goes on to claim they would the threats. Among them is the implementation of the Green New Deal, a complete ban on coal mining, higher taxes, cuts to defense spending, and Medicare for All.
The list goes onto include the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding for abortion. It asserts repeal of the Hyde Amendment is an improvement of public health. Further, it advocates an “explicitly anti-racist” agenda to eliminate gaps between minorities.
It seems “non-Latinx white people” need special considerations. Reparations for blacks, Native Americans, and Puerto Ricans should be part of that agenda, the authors say. Okay, you might think a prestigious medical journal would have the discipline to stay in the area of expertise. Therein lies the issue.
When is a scientific journal selling its credibility?
The Lancet has acquired credibility. Its credibility comes from the scholarly application of the scientific method. It comes from have published a body of work in a scientific field. The credibility comes from having and applying standards of truth and a conservative approach to the works it publishes. It has a reputation for speaking the truth to those who will be able to apply the lessons learned. Here it has strayed from its mission and leverages its credibility for political, not scientific purposes.
The Lancet report funding comes from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. The report was trumpeted in outlets from the Guardian to Forbes. It illustrates the way scientific institutions are being hijacked for partisan political gain. Who would do such a thing?
Those same hijackers decry the politicization of science. Yet, it raises the question of whether Trump’s fusillades against experts have done more harm to scientific credibility. Perhaps it was not Trump who was doing the damage. Maybe it was the experts themselves prostituting their “science”. What view do you take of such insertion of politics through such indirect influence pedaling? That is what is going on.
