No Facts Needed in Post-Truth Science
Last week, National Review published an article by our chief science officer, Dr. Joseph Perrone, entitled “Post-Truth Science.”
Dr. Perrone explores how emotionally charged reporting can impede the public’s understanding of science – and how in some cases, that public pressure can make its way all the way to the Oval Office.
“Post-truth” is much in the news these days — both the word itself and the phenomenon it describes, in which (according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which chose “post-truth” as its Word of the Year) “objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Consider, for example, the way emotionally charged reporting turned the scientific consensus on biotechnology — in particular, genetically modified (GM) foods and the herbicide glyphosate — into a circus of public confusion that reached even our nation’s highest office.
To find out how scientifically unfounded criticisms turned from blog post to law, read Dr. Perrone’s piece HERE.