Science and Politics: A Marriage of Convenience or a Necessary Alliance? This is the question that Dr. Alexander Furnas, a keynote speaker at the 247th AAS meeting, is tackling head-on. In an era where the relationship between scientific research and political decision-making is more scrutinized than ever, Dr. Furnas’s work sheds light on the intricate ways these two worlds intersect. But here's where it gets controversial: Can science ever truly be apolitical? Dr. Furnas argues that the notion of science as a neutral entity is a myth, and his research proves it. And this is the part most people miss: the evidence he presents isn’t just about how science is used in policy—it’s about why and by whom it’s used, often in ways that challenge our assumptions.
In this exclusive series, we delve into the mind of Dr. Furnas, a researcher at Northwestern University, whose work focuses on the role of information and expertise in science policymaking. By analyzing vast collections of policy documents, he uncovers how governmental staffers and think tanks across the ideological spectrum leverage scientific research to shape legislation. What’s fascinating—and perhaps unsettling—is that these documents are rarely crafted by scientists. Instead, they’re the brainchild of policy professionals who may cherry-pick evidence to support their agendas or avoid unintended consequences. Is this a misuse of science, or simply the reality of how policy gets made?
One of Dr. Furnas’s most striking findings is the stark partisan divide in how scientific studies are cited. Of all papers referenced in policy documents, only 5% are cited by both Republicans and Democrats. Even when focusing on similar topics, bipartisan citations remain rare. However, the papers that do cross party lines tend to be highly impactful and widely recognized within their fields. Yet, this bipartisanship isn’t evenly distributed across scientific disciplines. Fields like tax economics and healthcare markets see more cross-party citations than areas like gendered violence or civil rights law. Why does this disparity exist, and what does it say about our priorities as a society?
Dr. Furnas’s research also offers a historical perspective on science funding, revealing that Republican administrations have traditionally allocated more money to scientific research than the current administration. This shift, he argues, reflects a growing anti-intellectualism and mistrust of academic institutions. Is this a temporary anomaly, or a sign of deeper systemic change?
For scientists, Dr. Furnas’s work is a call to action. It highlights how their research is used (or misused) in policymaking, provides insights into reaching policymakers effectively, and offers strategies for navigating the complex science-politics relationship. As he puts it, scientists should advocate not for the political neutrality of science, but for the objectivity of their methods. But here’s the question we leave you with: Can scientists truly remain objective in a politically charged world, or is that idealism a luxury we can no longer afford?
To explore these questions further, don’t miss Dr. Furnas’s Plenary Lecture at 11:40 AM MST on Wednesday, January 7th at #AAS247. And let us know in the comments: Do you think science can—or should—be apolitical? We’d love to hear your thoughts!
Edited by: Skylar Grayson
Featured Image Credit: AAS
Nathalie Korhonen Cuestas, a second-year PhD student at Northwestern University studying the chemical evolution of galaxies, contributed to this post. View all posts
