“The Shadow of Control: How Science is Being Manipulated in the White House”
In the heart of our democratic system, a subtle yet insidious force has been quietly shaping the narrative on science. Behind the scenes, a totalitarian approach to scientific inquiry has taken hold, threatening the very foundation of our nation’s pursuit of knowledge and truth. The rise of politicized science in the White House is a growing concern, as the boundaries between fact and fiction, and science and ideology, become increasingly blurred.
From the erasure of dissenting voices to the suppression of inconvenient evidence, the administration’s stranglehold on scientific research and communication has raised alarm bells among experts, policymakers, and citizens alike. As the world grapples with pressing global challenges, from climate change to public health, the need for objective, evidence-based decision-making has never been more crucial.
Totalitarian Science in the White House
Laurance J. Peter, author of the “Peter Principle” that theorized in any hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his or her level of incompetence, once remarked that “Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.” This ingrained institutional resistance to change often induces bureaucracies to seek to suppress facts that challenge underlying assumptions of the current political agenda. So, it was distressing to see the Biden White House issue a “Model Scientific Integrity Policy” earlier this year containing a provision that would forbid any federal scientist “making or publishing” any statements “that could be construed as being judgments of, or recommendations on,” any federal policy without permission.
It was doubly ironic that this new prohibition is contained in the section that purports to promote transparency and the “free flow of scientific information.” This provision was based upon a similar bar contained within the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s scientific integrity policy adopted in 2014. USDA’s is the only federal scientific integrity policy with such a prohibition. USDA has used this provision mainly to assuage concerns expressed by agrochemical companies and other “stakeholders.” In this regard, this provision has been invoked to order a staff entomologist to remove his name from a peer-reviewed journal article on how monoculture farming reduces diversity in insect populations, thus limiting beneficial pollinators. That same provision was also cited as the basis for barring a scientist from speaking at a conference about the effects on pollinators from genetically modified crops and the insecticides used to treat them. That scientist later resigned in frustration after concluding that groundbreaking research would be impossible to pursue inside USDA.
Unfortunately, the early indications are that with White House support, other agencies will adopt this gag order in their scientific integrity policies. This summer, the Department of Health & Human Services proposed to add this prohibition in its policy . It is now in its final stage of approval, meaning that it may soon apply across the entire $1.7 trillion HHS, its 12 divisions, and nine separate public health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health, and Food & Drug Administration. Altogether, these agencies have roughly 78,000 employees, most of whom perform scientific or technical work that would be covered by the new policy.
A Hunger Strike for Gaza
I am on day 10 of a voluntary hunger strike while Palestinians in Gaza are being starved to death. It is estimated that 3,500 children are at risk of death in the coming weeks due to starvation. Two million people are trapped in the besieged Gaza strip, almost half of them under the age of 18. There were roughly 1,000 aid trucks entering weekly before May 6, 2024—grossly inadequate for the need—but since the start of Israel’s ground offensive into Rafah, only a trickle of aid trucks have made it through, deepening the humanitarian crisis and man-made famine.
I was recently a participant on the latest Gaza Freedom Flotilla that aimed to bring 5,500 metric tons of lifesaving humanitarian aid to Gaza, but unfortunately that mission was sabotaged by Israeli interference with the country that flagged our ships. After being in Palestine, in the West Bank, you realize that the people living there look at us like we have the power to change something. Concerned civilians are not even allowed to carry out our moral and legal obligation of delivering lifesaving aid when our governments fail to do so.
Personal Reflections
I was in Palestine, in the West Bank, you realize that the people living there look at us like we have the power to change something. Being too comfortable in our excess here in the West has kept many from being true allies in this fight. Here in America we may think our voices do not matter, but we have access to the people, the decisions, and the places of incredible power that those in the colonized world could never dream of—inside our Congress and across from the White House.
In Palestine, when people would hear I was from America, in every conversation, they wanted to talk about the encampments on college campuses. They were so proud of the students, and the encampments gave them some hope after the occupation had taken just about everything from them. What I saw and experienced in the West Bank was so frightening that I knew upon my return I had to do all I could to amplify their truth and fight for the liberation of Palestine and her people: I owed it to them.
As many have reminded me, I am not famous, I am not important. I am just one person—yes, I know this. But how could I amplify my one small voice as loud as possible to advocate for those suffering under this sadistic occupation? I decided to go to the belly of the beast (D.C.) and protest in a way that’s not the norm. People look at me like I am suffering needlessly for the cause, and I would point out that while I have
The 2024 Election and the Question of Belonging
Kamala Harris and the Promise of Belonging
Before Barack Obama ran for president, I remember thinking there would never be a black president in my lifetime. And I remember feeling overwhelmed, even tearful, when I watched on television as the new First Family walked on the stage at Grant Park in Chicago. It wasn’t so much the sight of President Obama that got to me. It was seeing Michelle and the girls, and Barak’s aged mother-in-law who would be living in dignity and esteem in the White House.
I was born in the segregated south, and there black women were mainly consigned to domestic work. But back in 2008, a majority of Americans voted to elect a young black man with a foreign-sounding name, and then four years later re-elected him. Now we have the question—in a time of heightened stress and deepened divides, and a time of post-pandemic malaise, social isolation, an affordability crisis, and a corrupted social media—can we take another step forward in our democracy and elect a black woman as president?
Watching the DNC renewed my hope. So many men stood up for one black woman brave enough to run for the highest office in the nation, but also for each woman and girl of all colors who face the terrible vulnerability of simply having a body that can both bring new life into the world and endanger her life with a pregnancy, voluntarily and otherwise, that can end her life. So many of these men said that they would use some of their political capital to make right for women what the Supreme Court made wrong.
Change takes bottom-up organizing, building a base, doing the hard work of governing locally and building up to national participation, not parachuting in during razor-thin elections. But the dread has crept back in recently as I hear people say they don’t really know Kamala. Is the real question about whether she is like me and, perhaps even more to the point, would she like me? Would I still belong, as a white person, or as a man, if a black woman holds the highest office in the land? Or would I be reminded that our nation has not always been kind or just to people who look like her?
Donald Trump and the Politics of Exclusion
Kamala Harris has promised to govern for everyone, and instead of giving priority to the rich, to especially focus on those who work hard to support their families. Those who see her in person or on the media often speak of her personal warmth. Donald Trump’s track record shows he will govern not based on policies or the best interests of the country, but based on what benefits himself and favored members of his family and inner circle.
Billionaires and right-wing ideologues are salivating at the money and power they can extract from Americans when given the green light by Trump. All they have to do is turn on the flattery. Trump gives some people a sense of belonging—wearing those red hats, laughing at his jokes about who he is going to rough up, creating an out-group—all that seems to scratch the itch for many people who are angry and feeling excluded. But the truth is that he has nothing but contempt for people who aren’t wealthy, and for men and women who served in the military (who he calls suckers), especially if they had the misfortune of being wounded, captured, or to have died in the line of duty.
Yes, his thirst for power and flattery, his threats of violence against anyone who stands in his way, his constant lying, and his endless boasting about his supposed greatness all make him a constant threat to our democracy. But it’s also true that his presence in politics has created an out-group, and that some people feel a sense of belonging when they join him and his followers in their hatred and anger.
Belonging in a Time of Crisis
Discussion of the importance of belonging in times of stress and uncertainty is timely and relevant. In a world where social media platforms are increasingly being used to spread misinformation and propaganda, it is more important than ever to have a clear and accurate understanding of the issues facing our world.
Analysis of the implications of the 2024 election on the nation’s conversation about belonging and identity is also crucial. As we move forward in this uncertain and rapidly changing world, it is essential that we prioritize the values of empathy, compassion, and understanding in order to build a more just and equitable society for all.
Conclusion
Conclusion: The Dark Shadows of Totalitarian Science in the White House
As we conclude our examination of the thought-provoking article “Opinion | Totalitarian Science in the White House – Common Dreams,” it’s becoming increasingly clear that the blurring of lines between science and politics poses a grave threat to our democracy. The article’s main arguments, centered around the notion that the White House is increasingly using science to justify its authoritarian policies, are both alarming and timely. By examining the ways in which science is being politicized, the article highlights the dangers of a totalitarian approach to governance, where facts are twisted to serve the interests of those in power.
The significance of this issue cannot be overstated. The manipulation of science for political gain not only undermines the integrity of our institutions but also erodes trust in the scientific community. As we navigate the complexities of a rapidly changing world, it’s more important than ever that science informs policy, not the other way around. The implications of totalitarian science in the White House are far-reaching and devastating, with the potential to undermine public health, exacerbate environmental crises, and further polarize our society.