When Science Takes a Backseat to Politics

In the early 1900s, a scientist named Trofim Lysenko had some odd ideas. He thought he could teach plants to grow in winter by soaking them in cold water. He also believed that if you treated crops right, they could thrive anywhere, even in places like Siberia. These ideas were not based on solid science, but they gained traction under Stalin's rule. Lysenko's methods led to disastrous results, including widespread famine. Other scientists, like Nikolai Vavilov, disagreed with Lysenko's ideas and paid a heavy price for it. Fast forward to today, and some climate experts in the U. S. are seeing a similar pattern. Shaina Sadai, a climate expert, has noticed how politics are overshadowing science. Recent government reports have misrepresented scientific studies, and the U. S. is pulling back from climate agreements while other countries are stepping up. This shift is part of a broader trend where democratic norms are weakening, and power is becoming more concentrated. One way this is happening is through small changes that add up to big impacts. For example, declaring an "energy emergency" allows federal agencies to bypass environmental reviews and fast-track fossil fuel projects. This benefits politically connected companies, which can shape laws to serve their interests. Oil and gas firms, in particular, are less transparent and more susceptible to political pressure, making them a favorite for autocratic leaders. The pattern continues with key roles being filled by industry-friendly figures. Lee Zeldin, who leads the Environmental Protection Agency, has strong ties to the fossil fuel industry. Under his leadership, the EPA has rolled back dozens of environmental rules, including limits on power plant emissions and wetland protections. This approach undermines the agency's mission and prioritizes corporate profits over environmental protection. Across the federal government, institutions that were once trusted to provide objective oversight are being reshaped to serve political goals. Websites are being altered, climate assessments are being taken offline, and scientific advisory panels are being fired. This makes the U. S. an outlier, even compared to countries like Russia, where climate science is generally accepted. Political scientists are worried that American institutions are drifting from their foundational principles. There's a growing sense of dissonance, where what's real and what's purported to be real are becoming blurred. Controlling the narrative is becoming more powerful than governing itself. The White House is taking this principle literally, approving mergers on the condition that media outlets install "truth-arbiters" to monitor their coverage. Living through these changes can feel surreal. While there are looming threats, life goes on, and it's easy to become desensitized to the shifts happening around us. For people like Shaina Sadai, the discord is hard to overcome. She's struggling to find a job and dealing with the constant barrage of troubling news. Yet, she continues to work through publication reviews and job applications, clinging to the hope that her work might still make a difference.