Was “science” on the ballot?
By Stephen Hilgartner, J. Benjamin Hurlbut, Sheila Jasanoff,
Science
| 02. 26. 2021
On 7 November 2020, moments before Kamala Harris and Joe Biden began their victory speeches, giant screens flanking the stage proclaimed, “The people have chosen science.” Yet, nearly 74 million Americans, almost half the voters, had cast their ballots for Donald Trump, thereby presumably not choosing science. Prominent scientists asserted that “science was on the ballot” and lamented that “a significant portion of America doesn't want science” (1). But before despairing at the loss of trust in science, we should be sure we are worrying about the right problem. Was “science” really on the ballot? Is it useful to imagine U.S. citizens as divided into pro-science and anti-science camps? Does the label antiscience serve the purposes of deliberative democracy? The answer to these questions is plainly no. A correct diagnosis is essential to repairing the sorry state of science-society relations in the United States.
Campaign slogans notwithstanding, science was not on the ballot. If the election contested any aspect of science, it was not the worth of scientific knowledge but the authority of experts to decide how people...
Related Articles
By Vittoria Vardanega, SWI swissinfo.ch | 02.13.2026
In recent years, sperm donation has produced family trees of unprecedented size, stretching across countries and, in some cases, continents. Stories of “mass donors” have captured public attention, most recently through the Netflix documentary series, The Man with 1,000 Kids...
By Jonathan D. Moreno, Hastings Center Bioethics Forum | 02.09.2026
When I began to write a book about bioethics and the rules-based international order, the idea that the world was facing the greatest geopolitical change since World War II was uncontroversial for those who were paying attention to such esoterica...
By Zachary Brennan, Endpoints News | 02.23.2026
The FDA is spelling out the details of a new pathway to help speed personalized cell and gene therapies to market for rare diseases.
Monday’s long-awaited draft guidance outlines the agency’s “plausible mechanism” framework, a pathway FDA Commissioner Marty Makary...
By David Jensen, California Stem Cell Report | 02.10.2026
Touchy issues involving accusations that California’s $12 billion gene and stem cell research agency is pushing aside “good science” in favor of new priorities and preferences will be aired again in late March at a public meeting in Sacramento.
The...