Science and politics: Why they must work hand in hand

In school, we learned that it’s not just about rote memorization, but also understanding what you’ve just memorized.

Anyone who recites a Percy Shelley poem without understanding its empathy and emotions hasn’t understood the poet. Anyone who wants to develop something new needs creativity and playfulness to create something ingenious. Albert Einstein already knew that intelligence alone doesn’t guarantee genius, and nothing new can emerge from it.

Therefore, science and politics should work hand in hand in the future.

This has not always been the case. For example: the tobacco industry vs epidemiology (1950s–1990s): Companies funded “doubt” campaigns to undermine clear evidence of cancer risks of smoking. Politicians sometimes reacted late, despite growing scientific evidence; corporate money was the deciding factor. Reagan-era AIDS policy (1980s): A slow, morally charged response despite clear epidemiological warnings; prevention and education efforts were hampered, exacerbating the spread of the disease.

Mad cow disease/Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in the United Kingdom (1990s): Early scientific warnings were downplayed; official reassurances (“no risk”) contradicted later findings on variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Stem cell research in the United States (2001–2009): Federal funding for embryonic stem cell lines was restricted despite medical potential; research partly shifted abroad/to the private sector. COVID-19: Political interference in health recommendations (2020–2021): In several countries, mask, testing, and vaccination recommendations were politicized; in some cases, pressure was exerted on government communication, which impaired trust and implementation. “Ivermectin nonsense against clear evidence for vaccination.”

In education policy, attempts are often made to legally mandate nonscientific content in curricula; courts have blocked these efforts, citing scientific standards. Patterns repeat themselves: ideological assumptions, economic interests, or short-term political goals clash with evidence; common methods include censorship, “doubt merchants,” selection of suitable data, pressure on government communication, and delaying tactics.

Examples today: banning social media for children? Higher sugar taxes due to the risk of diabetes? The same question applies to cigarettes and alcohol, for different health reasons. Politicians, scientists, and ideologues, including certain religious leaders, should be measured against astrophysicist Carl Sagan’s famous saying: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Some things cannot be proven, like the question: “What was before the Big Bang?” Stephen Hawking jokingly answered: “What is north of the North Pole?” I almost forgot, humor and satire should also apply to everyone; otherwise, life wouldn’t be worth living—without laughter.