American Scientist

We now find ourselves in a uniquely challenging environment to fight the rising tide of the modern-day antiscience movement, politically and ideologically motivated opposition to science from powerful special interests. The good news is that the fundamental obstacles aren’t physical, or biological, or technological. They are political. And political obstacles—even in today’s fraught geopolitical environment—can be overcome.

Scientists are vulnerable to bad-faith attacks, in part, because in many instances the public does not have a deep understanding of what it is that we actually do as “working scientists.” They do not understand how we struggle over revisions of scientific papers and grants, prepare to present our findings at scientific meetings, and mentor our students and postdoctoral researchers. They don’t understand the process of scientific grant applications, the competition for funds, or the reviews by independent scientists. They’re unaware, for example, that grants go to the institution, not the individual, and fund our research rather than going to our pockets. During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the talking heads on Fox News—of all people, now National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Jay Bhattacharya—accused one of us (Hotez) of being “funded by Fauci’s group” because his lab receives support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the NIH; in fact, the funds go to the Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, and then-NIAID director Anthony Fauci had no role in the grant decision-making process, which was scored and ranked by an independent study section of outside scientists. Instead, Fox News viewers were given the impression that funding to Hotez’s laboratory represented some type of unsavory backroom deal. Therefore, part of science education relies on explaining the processes of the scientific endeavor.

One reason many scientists choose not to engage with the public is the fear that they will find themselves at the center of ideologically and politically motivated attacks aimed at discrediting and intimidating them. Indeed, the intent of these attacks is to serve notice to others who might think of speaking up and speaking out. In The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, one of us (Mann) coined a term for the phenomenon, the Serengeti Strategy, or the strategy of trying to pick off vulnerable scientists and make an example of them for the rest of the community. Although this book focused on the intimidation campaign against climate scientists, the principle holds in any area of science.

That is why individual scientists must stand up to the attacks. It sends an important message to others that we, as a community, will not take these attacks lying down. Although there are broad U.S. constitutional protections for free speech, false and defamatory statements receive no such protection. One of us (Mann) speaks from personal experience here. Back in 2012, he was subjected to false allegations of fraud by two right-wing writers (Mark Steyn, in the National Review, and Rand Simberg, for the Competitive Enterprise Institute) who, adding insult to injury, drew parallels between Mann, a Pennsylvania State University professor at the time, and Jerry Sandusky, the former assistant football coach of that institution who was convicted of child molestation. Mann demanded a retraction and apology. When neither individual was willing to do so, he took them to court. As a public figure, there’s a high bar for winning a defamation suit. The plaintiff must demonstrate what’s known as “actual malice,” that is, that not only were the defendants’ statements false, but they either knew they were false or (citing the famous New York Times Co. v. Sullivan standard) showed “reckless disregard for the truth.”

Protections need to be extended to scientists who face bad-faith, ideologically motivated attacks aimed at discrediting or intimidating them.

• Facebook
• Twitter

Although it took 12 long years to play out and there are still appeals, Mann prevailed, with a Washington, D.C., jury unanimously finding in his favor in early February 2024. Mann received countless calls and messages from fellow scientists, policymakers, and heads of major scientific institutions, thanking him for persevering. They understood that this victory wasn’t just for one scientist. It was a victory for science and fact-based discourse. At a time when scientists are being harried by conservative politicians and receiving death threats from unhinged individuals who have been weaponized by antiscience disinformation, this victory was a small but significant one.

There is a bit of a postscript to this episode that deserves mention. Steyn, later that same year, was slapped down in the U.K. courts for his wanton and dangerous promotion of antiscience, this time about COVID-19. Steyn hosted a show in the United Kingdom on the right-wing network GB News. In April 2022, he falsely asserted that official U.K. health data demonstrated that vaccines caused higher infection, hospitalization, and death rates. Then, in October 2022, he had conspiracy theorist Naomi Wolf come on his show and insist to viewers that COVID-19 vaccines were part of an effort “to destroy British civil society,” and that this constituted “mass murder” akin to “doctors in pre-Nazi Germany.” In response to numerous complaints about the two episodes, the British media regulatory commission Ofcom ruled in March 2023 that GB News had violated British media codes of conduct, finding that Steyn had given a “materially misleading interpretation” of COVID-19 data “without sufficient challenge or counterweight,” causing potential “harm to viewers.” They determined that Wolf had promoted “a serious conspiracy theory,” with GB News failing to take “adequate steps to protect viewers” from “potentially harmful content.” Steyn insisted that these actions “killed” his career and sued Ofcom. The high court of the United Kingdom rejected the suit, ruling that Ofcom was “entitled to conclude” that Steyn had violated its rules and that their deliberations had been “detailed and comprehensive.” Steyn was ordered to pay Ofcom substantial legal costs.

Supporting Scientists

Such legal victories—important as they are—are nonetheless the exception to the rule. Scientists typically depend on the backing of their employers, that is, universities or government science agencies, for legal protections. In some cases, however, this support does not happen, and the scientists must arrange their own legal defense, often at considerable expense. Some of these same scientists are abandoned by their employers after receiving baseless attacks online or, in many cases now, actionable threats of physical harm.

We must consider expanding protections for scientists. A possible model is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) that one of us (Mann) played a role in establishing more than a decade ago. The CSLDF supports climate scientists who are threatened with legal action over their scientific work or who are subject to frivolous and vexatious open-records or Freedom of Information Act demands, the only intentions of which are to harass them. Such protections need to be extended to biomedical scientists and scientists in other fields who face bad-faith, ideologically motivated attacks aimed at discrediting or intimidating them. One of us (Hotez) has suggested creating a clearinghouse of individuals and organizations generating antiscience disinformation and providing legal advice and access to pro bono legal representation for scientists under attack. In the United States, we could also create federal protections for scientists along the lines that Canada now has had in place for two years, in the form of laws to protect health care providers from threats and bullying. In the meantime, the Texas-based Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation is exploring with Hotez the prospects of creating a CSLDF-like structure, but for biomedical scientists.

Independent scientific bodies such as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are in a position to take action. On April 28, 2024, we participated in a plenary panel at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences titled “Scientists Under Fire,” along with Anthony Fauci and Yale Medical School immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki. The audience of academy members expressed strong support for the National Academies taking a more proactive stance in supporting scientists who find themselves subject to attack. We believe there are reasons for optimism that we may see a more proactive stance on the part of the National Academies in the years to come.

At the international level, the other national academies, including the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, must step up as well. The recent call to action by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) advocating for the “promotion of scientific freedom and the safety of scientists” provides a model for the sort of action that is needed at the international level. The UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council, NATO, and future G7 and G20 summits could prioritize efforts to slow or halt antiscience disinformation and provide basic protections for scientists. Scientists shouldn’t have to endure death threats or public attacks.

Recovering the Pro-Science Right

Let us not neglect communicating with conservatives altogether, even if the returns on our investment might seem diminished. Uncoupling antiscience from the bedrock of conservative thinking is critical to winning over the more than one-third of the U.S. population that self-identifies today as “conservative.” Everyone is entitled to their political views but not their own facts, to paraphrase former New York senator Daniel P. Moynihan. As Jonathan Chait noted in “Donald Trump Has Finally Killed the Pro-Science Wing of the Republican Party,” in New York Magazine in 2016, the thorough alignment of the Republican Party with antiscience is a relatively recent development. We must convince the libertarian think tanks, conservative colleges, and other right-leaning institutions that by adopting antiscience as a shibboleth today, they are undermining American strength and values and harming our country.

It’s worth reminding conservatives that the Republican Party was once a party of environmental stewardship. Think of Nixon’s founding of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Reagan’s support of the Montreal Protocol. It once championed science and technology as a driver of progress and prosperity. And it’s important to remember that a majority of the people are already on board: Polls show that most Americans do recognize the threats posed by the climate crisis and pandemics and support meaningful policy interventions. There are conservative figures who are well positioned to carry this message. A great example is former U.S. congressman Bob Inglis, a “Reagan Republican” House member from South Carolina who lost his congressional seat because of oppositional support from Koch Industries (the world’s largest privately held fossil fuel company) after he voiced concerns about global warming and advocated for addressing climate action. Now, Inglis travels the country advocating for market-driven solutions to the climate crisis to conservative audiences.

Speaking Up

In the meantime, we can and must use our voices, organize, speak out, pressure our elected representatives, call out and ridicule the bad actors, be brave, speak truth to power, and back up others willing to do the same. In March 2025, one of us (Mann) spoke in Washington, D.C., at the “Stand Up for Science” rally held at the Lincoln Memorial, along with other notable science figures such as Bill Nye, Francis Collins, and former Michigan Republican representative Fred Upton, a proscience advocate. Midterm elections—which are just a year away—are an opportunity to potentially win back at least part of our government to the side of science, reason, and responsibility. This ship won’t be turned around on a dime. It will take sustained effort.

We can join with our fellow scientists and organize and pressure academic and scientific institutions to take a more proactive stance against antiscientific disinformation and to provide support and defense for scientists subject to concerted attacks on science and academia. We’ve seen some progress here over the past decade. Back in 2012, Andrew Weaver, a leading climate scientist from the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, ran for higher office. He was elected as the first Green Party member of British Columbia’s legislative assembly in 2013 and went on to become the leader of the Green Party of British Columbia in 2015. He used this platform to push for clean energy and oppose the expansion of liquefied natural gas. Climate scientist Claudia Sheinbaum, however, took it to a new level in June 2024, running for and being elected president of Mexico. It remains to be seen just what she will do with this platform.

Social transitions tend to happen at a tipping point in collective consciousness, estimated by some to be a critical mass of 25 percent of the public.

• Facebook
• Twitter

Of course, you hardly need to be a scientist to play an important role. It often comes down to voting, and not just at the presidential level, but at the state and local levels. Even the 2024 election offered at least one silver lining in the climate domain: Climate initiatives did well across the country. Voters in Washington state rejected a ballot measure that attempted to repeal the state’s cap-and-trade system for emissions reductions, while voters in California and Hawaiʻi overwhelmingly passed measures to invest in climate resilience. Voters in the fossil fuel stronghold of Louisiana approved new incentives for clean energy.

Ultimately, it comes down to us, as individuals, working toward the needed change. It is all too easy to become disillusioned and disengaged. So we must remain focused on pushing back against the tide of antiscience, and on advancing the cause of evidence-based science and science-based policy.

Across human history we have learned how social transitions tend to happen through “tipping points” in collective consciousness. A 2018 study in the journal Science by Damon Centola of the University of Pennsylvania and his colleagues found that the “opinion of the majority could be tipped to that of the minority” if it reaches a “critical mass,” estimated by some to be roughly 25 percent of the public. For instance, this concept may explain how we achieved a tipping point in public support for marriage equality in the United States. To paraphrase Guardian columnist George Monbiot, social change seems “impossible”until it becomes inevitable. And as commented by early 20th-century trade union activist Nicholas Klein: “First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.”

But the point is clear—we must push forward, confident in the knowledge that this benevolent tipping point in public consciousness could be near, while mindful of the fact that it must occur before we experience malevolent tipping points in public and planetary health.

This essay is adapted with permission from Science Under Siege: How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces that Threaten Our World (PublicAffairs, 2025).