The Hypocrisy of Science in Government

Michelle Wu

If you know me, if you know me even a little, you’ve probably heard of my obsession with The West Wing. Yes, I, a cranky conservative who can’t sleep at night on account of the deficit, love this liberal wet dream of a television series. I can relate to the characters on a personal level if not a political one, and it’s crazy how the politics of 20 years ago are still so applicable today. Of course, I love Aaron Sorkin, and I worship Ainsley Hayes. Most of all, The West Wing reassures me that the people in government are good and true, that no matter the administration, the vast majority are working for the betterment of our country.

But what constitutes betterment? The old liberal versus conservative ideologies and its new factions have fractured our nation more than ever before. What the people consider betterment is based on morals, and morals are ultimately subjective. And if the last decade has been any indicator, Americans can no longer agree on morals. This comes from diversity, a trait I consider a strength, but which ultimately leads to a nonexistent American identity. What does it mean to be American? It means embracing our differences. We don’t have a set culture, we’re each practicing our own. Our culture, the American culture, is an anti-culture.

I think this is fine to an extent, but there’s no denying we can no longer rely on common beliefs for national unity and improvement. We’ve become too polarized for that. So, how do we govern? What isn’t subjective? It’s fact. It’s science. Research, when executed properly, is the closest we can get to real, proper, objective truth, and in the end, isn’t truth the most moral thing?

So, the right thing, the logical thing, the practical thing to do is to govern purely on scientific evidence. And as our population has become more educated, both parties have begun to use this approach, perhaps one more than the other. Statistics have become paramount in attack ads and on debate stages. President Trump has embraced the Space Force, while Democrats on the Hill call constantly for more funding to public research. We are moving in the direction of science. I approve, but it’s ultimately hypocritical on both sides.

Science is nonpartisan, while our government is very not so. Facts are what they are, but people only want to hear them when they support beliefs they already have. Why else would Republicans cite black-on-black crime statistics while ignoring scientists begging them to see global warming? Why would Democrats champion the infamous UBI study while refusing to acknowledge the massive deflation that would result? Both are guilty, but I’m going to pick on the left here because I’m a mean, racist, sexist conservative, but also because the liberal side does this on a larger scale than the ideologically entrenched right.

The Women in STEM movement is a prime example. The movement encourages young women, especially students, to pursue achievement and careers in science, technology, and mathematics, historically male-dominated fields. I have no doubt there are plenty of willing and able women who will excel in these fields. I have no doubt that many of those same women will experience discrimination because of their gender. And yet, the Women in STEM movement fails to address uncomfortable scientific truths about gender.

I usually have citations for all five of my dear readers, but I simply couldn’t take the time to list all the articles that tell you what I’m about to tell you. There are biological differences between men and women. Men are generally more analytical while women are wired to be more emotional and communicative. The male nature is more suited to work in research settings, and women historically excel more in linguistics and arts fields. Does that mean women can’t be successful in STEM? Absolutely not, and whoever tells you that is an idiot. But I bet you won’t hear it because most people and companies don’t believe that or condone that kind of attitude. Sexist thinking like that is no longer acceptable in our society, and the Women in STEM movement played a huge role in that.

Props to the movement. You did it, that's significant, and I’m not being at all sarcastic when I say it. However, while women have caught up in representation in life and social science fields, they are still hugely underrepresented in tech and advanced mathematics fields (Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, & Williams, 2014; Su & Rounds, 2016). Is it a coincidence that these fields require extensive analytical skills, a trait that is represented more in men? Even if one argues it is, there still exists a paradox the Women in STEM movement is either unaware of or refuses to acknowledge. A study from the Association for Psychological Science finds that in the most gender equal countries, girls perform similarly to boys in STEM subjects while outperforming them in linguistics. However, in these same countries, representation of women in STEM fields is significantly lower than that of women in countries scoring lower on the gender equality scale (Stoet & Gaery, 2018). Countries with higher gender equality tend to be more economically, technologically, and socially progressive than countries with lower levels of gender equality (World Economic Forum, 2015).

So, what does this mean? This means girls have the ability to exceed in STEM when in the right environment. But when given all the opportunities and after achieving the necessary ability, women choose not to go into STEM fields. Women in less fortunate situations feel they need to go into STEM fields to support their families due to obvious economic benefits, but when women are given autonomy, equal opportunity, and confidence in their abilities, they overwhelmingly pursue other career paths.

If this is all true, why does the Women in STEM movement still exist? I believe it’s because modern feminists don’t believe in real equality. Instead of acknowledging the talents and nature of women as equal to the nature of men, modern feminists feel that to be equal, they must be like men. Here, I’ll fall into my own trap of presenting anecdote as evidence. I distinctly remember my experience as a former “woman in STEM”, and I’ll ramble about this more specifically in the podcast (go listen!!!). It was instilled into me from a young age that to be considered smart, I had to be good at math or science. I was constantly told to be stoic, to be less emotional, to feel less important because I was a better writer than I was a coder. I needed to be more like a man. That’s messed up. That’s sexist. Let women embrace their natural talents and make their own choices, whatever they may be.

I’ve gone off on a multiple-paragraph tangent, but my point is this: politicians use statistics and research when it’s convenient and ignore it otherwise. I believe we should govern purely on science, solely on objective truth. And yes, some of those truths, maybe even most of them, are going to be extremely uncomfortable for one side or the other. Democrats don’t want to hear that legalizing gay marriage is not conducive to humanity’s evolution and progress of our population. Republicans don’t want to hear that yes, abortions do reduce poverty, and abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work.

It’s science. And it’s how I think we should govern. Are you uncomfortable, or even angry with what I just said? Are you thinking, what the hell, Michelle, are you homophobic? Are you against my right to celebrate and legally certify my love? Did you think, Michelle, abortion is literally killing a living thing, how could you say that’s okay in order to reduce poverty? Do you want my kids to be taught how to have sex in elementary school?

Okay, to answer your questions, no, I’m not against gay marriage. Yes, I personally am strongly against abortion. Those are all moral questions. Those should be up to you to decide for yourself: the government should not decide them for you, or worse, make them into law. None of the questions you asked me should be answered by the government. The only policy coming from our leaders should be the result of peer-reviewed research, and on all matters personal and moral, those are up to you.

Now, I’m not stupid. This isn’t at all realistic and it’d probably fail right out of the gate. But this is the only solution I can think of. If we as Americans are going to insist on diversity of thought, on our culture being an anti-culture, on our ideologies becoming increasingly extreme, on abandoning any sort of national identity, this is the only way we will be able to legislate effectively. Our government should be loyal to only two things: the American people and the truth. I believe politicians should not impose one set of values on a diverse nation, and if I offended you, if I made you angry, if I made you think at any point in this essay, you do, too.

- MW