In Science We (Don’t) Trust: How Partisanship Shapes Policy

Image via Nature

***

In 1934, David Hilbert, the great German mathematician, was dining with Bernhard Rust, Nazi minister of education. In their conversation,  Rust asked Hilbert, “How is mathematics at Göttingen now that it is free from the Jewish influence?” Hilbert replied, “There is no mathematics in Göttingen anymore.” 

While the details of the story vary, the lesson remains the same: when ideology dictates what counts as the truth, the pursuit of knowledge suffers. Göttingen, a small German university town that once held the status as the world’s foremost center of mathematical research, lost approximately 45 lecturers and professors to expulsion due to the political climate in Germany in 1933—that being a hatred of the Jewish faith. Prejudice and political ideology had destroyed Göttingen’s mathematical dominance. But, have we learned anything from these historical mistakes?

A 2024 Northwestern study in Science led by the Kellogg School of Management’s Dashun Wang and Alexander Furnas analyzed congressional committee reports, hearings, and policy documents from think tanks around the country. The researchers found that over the past 25 years, more policymakers and think tanks have been citing scientific research in their reports and hearings, meaning that political decision-makers are turning to science more than ever. But, even as the use of science in policymaking has increased, so has the difference between the kind of information that both sides of the political spectrum draw from.

Image via KelloggInsight

***

After examining around 50,000 policy documents and 200,000 reports, researchers found 424,000 scientific references in these documents. Only about 5% of the scientific sources were cited by both Republicans and Democrats, meaning that 95% of the time, the two sides are relying on different bodies of research, even when working on the exact same issue. In one case, for instance, two think tanks on opposite ends of the political spectrum, the Urban Institute and the Employment Policies Institute, both drafted a report on the effects of raising the minimum wage, with almost identical titles. The Urban Institute focused on studies examining the distributional effects of minimum wage laws, while the Employment Policies Institute cited information on the employment and labor supply effects of minimum wage increases. 62 scientific papers were cited across both documents, but only one was used by both think tanks. As Furnas points out, science plays a critical role in policymaking because it’s used to understand the world, identify problems, and determine which interventions are most effective. However, when partisans are relying on different sets of science and develop different understandings of the world, it can create serious challenges for effective democratic governance and policymaking.

Since the early 2000s, political interests in the U.S. have shaped the way scientific research is interpreted and presented. Ideological agendas have turned issues like climate change, technology, and public health into political battlegrounds rather than a shared set of facts grounded in comprehensive evidence. “Science is supposed to be seen as a politically neutral, trusted source of information,” Wang said. “But as our study suggests, different political parties cite different scientific sources to back their claims. That raises the question of whether science is being used selectively to support preexisting beliefs or agendas.” This selective use of science has serious implications: when parties only rely on research that supports their agenda, they form skewed understandings of reality that make it challenging to develop effective policies.

One of the most significant factors shaping the use of scientific information, however, is trust. Researchers conducted a survey of 3,500 U.S. political elites and stakeholders and found that 96% of Democrats said they completely or partially trust scientists, compared with roughly 63.7% of Republicans. This divide between Democrats and Republicans regarding the trustworthiness of science is reflected in policymaking today. The current administration under Donald Trump has adopted a notably skeptical stance toward science, with President Trump having previously called climate change a “hoax” invented by China and asking for the names of scientists who study global warming. In the administration’s proposed budget for the 2026 fiscal year, the president calls for unprecedented cuts to U.S. science agencies. This will include a 56% cut to the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and a 40% cut to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be targeted by a 55% cut as the administration seeks to eliminate what they call “radical” and “woke” climate initiatives. It’s clear that these cuts reflect not only a distrust in science, but also a desire to put on a political performance to rally the party. But, the truth is that this performance plays to no one. When scientific institutions are caught in the crossfire of political battles, the fallout is shared by us all. It will cost us our shared future, our planet, and the basic well-being of humanity. 

The political cataclysm in the 1930s reminds us how vulnerable scientific communities are when political elites dictate what knowledge should be valued or dismissed. America is not living through the same challenges, but the warning is familiar: when science becomes politicized, knowledge suffers, and so do we. It would be a tragedy if a nation that once benefited from another era’s exiled scholars allowed its own scientific institutions to be weakened by partisanship in this new era of anti-science and anti-intellectual policies. What we must remember from history is that, as much as politics tries to bend science to its will, the consequences are never partisan—we all lose.

***

This article was edited by Elise Grin and Jordan Donegan.