Science Is Being Threatened. Researchers Can’t Stand By.

Like many Americans, I spent my Tuesday night glued to the television, watching state after state turn red on CNN’s “magic wall.” What I saw was sobering.

Since then, I have reflected on the last Donald Trump presidency and prepared myself for what the next four years might look like.

As a prospective physician-scientist, I worry about the potential implications of this shift for public health policy. Voices on the right have too often sidelined or even undermined important scientific insights.

With four more years of Trump in power, those voices will set our nation’s science policy. Research scientists — at Harvard and beyond — can’t let their dangerous words go unanswered.

The most glaring example of dangerous politically skewed health policy was Trump’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2020, the need for science-backed health measures became urgent and undeniable. Yet many politicians rejected evidence-based strategies including mask mandates and social distancing, instead opening the door for the spread of misinformation about health care policies including vaccinations.

Several conservatives even claimed the pandemic was a hoax, fostered skepticism about vaccine efficacy in their communities, or threatened to cut funding for organizations that instituted mask mandates.

No wonder the American public’s trust in the validity of science is declining. A recent Pew survey even found that over a quarter of Americans claim they have “not too much or no confidence in scientists.”

Now, science skeptics are posed to wield power in the next Trump administration: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ’76, a Trump associate who has peddled dangerous skepticism of the efficacy of vaccines, may receive a post in the White House.

Beyond its irresponsibility, this trend could kill.

Public health initiatives only work if all of us buy in. For example, vaccinations can bolster herd immunity, which limits the transmission of infections among immune individuals and thereby quashes the spread of disease with enough participation.

Trusting science should therefore be nonpartisan; it should be a social responsibility. Healthcare that saves lives should not be divisive. Red or blue, we all want our families, friends, and communities to live safely.

My biggest fear in the next four years is that critical healthcare measures and scientific discoveries will not be accepted by the general public because of political malfeasance. The fact that so many voters cast their lot with the Republican party suggests a worrying public sympathy for scaling back science’s role in society.

The public narrative around scientific research has to change. Scientists must lead that charge.

The burden now falls on clinical researchers and physicians to ensure that their work is not only rigorous but also transparent and accessible. Researchers should strive to make their work available in a form that limits technical jargon so that anyone can understand their findings and make informed decisions without political bias.

Healthcare is not the only scientific topic caught in the political crosshairs for the next four years: Climate change, digital safety, and energy are all issues where scientific evidence becomes critical in shaping policy too.

Investigators have a role to play not just in advancing research but in demystifying it. If we hope to overcome current and future public health challenges, we must place evidence-based science at the center of our national discourse and encourage the public to engage with it directly.

In the coming years, scientists must work tirelessly to regain public trust. Science alone won’t speak for itself.

Sandhya Kumar ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a joint concentrator in Molecular & Cellular Biology and Statistics in Winthrop House.