The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a concerning backlash against scientists and evidence-based findings. Factors such as politics, personal agendas, and fear—particularly regarding job stability—have fostered skepticism toward scientific data and forecasts. Phrases like, “Scientists are just puppets of ‘big pharma.’ This is all a scam. Don't trust those elitists in ivory towers,” reflect this growing distrust.

Why has this trend emerged? What leads to the dismissal of credible research? The persistence of opposition is evident in social media narratives that undermine the contagious nature of COVID-19, in gatherings that flout social distancing, and among protestors who argue that personal freedoms supersede public health. Political leaders often send mixed messages, selectively endorsing information that suits their interests or those of their donors—often disregarding factual evidence.

The current crisis may simply expose a long-standing anti-intellectual sentiment that has been developing for years. Contributing factors include relaxed educational standards and a misguided belief that personal beliefs carry equal weight to scientific data. Consequently, scientific evidence is often treated as just another opinion. This trend threatens public policy, legislative action, and healthcare decisions, with repercussions for all.

Recently, the president of the American Medical Association, Patrice Harris, voiced these worries:

“We exist in a time when misinformation spreads rapidly, akin to viruses, through social media and even mainstream media. Over the past decades, we have witnessed a worrying shift where policy choices seem influenced more by ideology than by facts and evidence. This has fostered a growing mistrust in American institutions, science, and the advice of experts dedicated to evidence-based reasoning.”

In addition to attacks on scientific credibility, scientists themselves often face criticism. While society tends to idolize celebrities and athletes, scientific leaders are derided as “nerds” or “Harvard elites.” The value of higher education is frequently overlooked or questioned. Popular culture often equates heightened intelligence with social dysfunction. Moreover, even when scientists gain media recognition, women and people of color are often sidelined. Educational funding for gifted programs is limited, and marginalized groups are often neglected. Widespread misconceptions, such as the so-called “10,000-hour rule,” suggest that anyone can achieve success with enough effort. In this environment, those with minimal expertise can claim authority, while seasoned professionals are often dismissed, with their knowledge seen as equivalent to opinions shared on Twitter.

These harmful beliefs and attacks on character foster a culture that undermines and questions its intellectual leaders. In an opinion piece, David Niose boldly states:

“While condemning racism and gun violence is essential, America’s social dysfunction has intensified as the nation has overlooked a critical underlying issue: anti-intellectualism… America is harming itself through its glorification of ignorance…”

The organization New Voices in Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has identified several issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including:

“… the apparent prioritization of economic interests over public health guidance from experts. This distrust in science exacerbates the erosion of public confidence and raises questions about whether data-driven decisions are being made in response to the crisis.”

What drives the trend of science-bashing in our society?

Corporate Influence

One significant factor in the skepticism toward science is America’s complicated relationship with corporations. Companies are often both admired and distrusted. Their political contributions and influence can affect public policy and funding for research, leading to suspicions. Historical examples, such as the tobacco industry and some pharmaceutical companies, highlight how industry-funded research can yield cherry-picked and dubious results. Political and corporate interests can skew the presentation and interpretation of data. Recently, debates surrounding the impact of human-induced fossil fuel emissions on climate change have unfolded along partisan lines.

Banerjee and Hasemyer note: “American denialism regarding science, evident in issues like climate change and the coronavirus, traces back to the early 1950s, during the battle against smog in Los Angeles.” They recount how a Cal-Tech biochemist faced backlash for pointing out that emissions contributed to smog in the region. The authors propose that there is considerable overlap between climate change deniers and those who downplay the severity of the COVID-19 crisis.

Religion and Ideology

Religious beliefs and ideological leanings also shape policy decisions and contribute to skepticism toward science. The religious right, in particular, has faced criticism for its perceived influence on policy and the national response to the pandemic. Long-standing conservative ideologies have further complicated these issues. This discussion is not intended to provoke division but rather to highlight elements that promote anti-science attitudes. While religious groups are entitled to their beliefs (and I have previously argued that science education can coexist with religious views), their growing influence on U.S. policy decisions is concerning.

The impact of religion and ideology is illustrated by the ongoing acceptance of teaching Creationism as a valid alternative to evolutionary theory. When educators present evolution as just one of many debatable perspectives and dismiss both scientific data and methodology, it opens the door for skepticism toward other scientific findings. Political scientist Eric Plutzer warns:

“… teaching the controversy” surrounding evolution and Creationism allows students to think that scientific matters are subjective. “The broader consequence is that students may conclude that essential elements of science are based on values rather than evidence, giving them the license to reject other scientific concepts.”

The Role of Education and Critical Thinking

A fundamental issue lies in the inadequate education many children receive, particularly regarding the development of critical thinking skills. Niose emphasizes the roles of corporate and religious interests in shaping policy decisions, but he also points to the rejection of critical thinking as a catalyst for rising anti-intellectualism:

“… it is indisputable that critical thinking has been discarded as a cultural value. Our societal failure to connect the dots and recognize that anti-intellectualism carries significant costs could ultimately lead to our downfall… Many Americans fail to acknowledge that numerous social issues stem from a rejection of critical thinking or, conversely, the glorification of emotional and irrational responses.”

Colin Seale advocates for the importance of critical thinking and highlights educational deficiencies where many students lack opportunities to develop this skill:

“Critical thinking is deemed one of the most essential skills for 21st-century learning. Educators and scholars agree that it is crucial for college and career readiness, and it has been linked to more favorable life outcomes. Yet, despite its significance, critical thinking remains a luxury: only 1 in 10 educators teach it, and those who do often work in selective schools or teach it only to privileged students.”

As a psychologist, I appreciate the value of emotion, intuition, and introspection. However, when emotions overshadow logic, reason, and scientific evidence, it creates an untenable situation. A common phrase in cognitive behavioral therapy is: “Just because you ‘feel’ something doesn’t make it true.” By enhancing education, encouraging children to think critically and deeply, and identifying overlooked and underserved students, we can better prepare for future crises. Access to quality education should not be contingent on privilege, wealth, or location. We must strive for improvement.

In Summary…

Science deniers often cling steadfastly to their beliefs. Many harbor a pervasive cynicism towards science and hold negative views of scientists. A constructive approach to bridging this divide would involve respectful dialogue with dissenters and understanding the roots of their skepticism. Valuing the scientific process does not equate to blind acceptance. While there are indeed outliers—poorly controlled studies, speculative reports, and the unfortunate influence of funding on what is published—science itself is a human endeavor, full of biases and mistakes. Ultimately, flawed findings are debunked through the core principles of science: inquiry, replication, and the willingness to revise theories when evidence contradicts them.

Lee McIntyre, in his commentary “How Do We Reverse the Tide of an Anti-Science America?” articulates this sentiment best:

“At its core, what distinguishes science is its commitment to evidence and its readiness to revise theories based on new data. The uniqueness of science lies not in its subject matter or methods but in the values and behaviors of those who practice it… When executed properly, the philosophy of science not only describes and explains; it prescribes. It clarifies why science has been successful historically and illustrates the potential value of evidential and experimental methods for other empirical fields in the future. It should also aid in communicating clearly to those who either do not understand or refuse to acknowledge what makes science distinctive, why pseudoscience and denialism fall short of scientific standards, and why scientific explanations hold greater merit.”

Ideally, fostering an appreciation for the values integral to the scientific process and its spirit of inquiry is crucial, alongside recognizing that imperfect scientific efforts still surpass mere intuition, stubborn beliefs, and wishful thinking. Small shifts and even minor challenges can be initiated daily—in social media, educational settings, and discussions with policymakers. Embracing anti-intellectualism and anti-science will ultimately be detrimental to society.