Former president Donald Trump has vowed to “fire” people who have allowed “Marxist maniacs” to allegedly dominate college education and its leadership. Campaigning on the promise to revoke college and university accreditations, Trump suggested that “academics have been obsessed with indoctrinating America's youth.”
In the lead-up to his 2016 campaign, he regularly referred to climate scientists as politically motivated “hoaxsters.” He described his own public health officials as “idiots,” and referred to National Institutes of Infectious Disease head Anthony Fauci as a “disaster” responsible for pandemic-related deaths.
While Trump's efforts to denigrate scientific experts were laced with his characteristic conspiracism and drama, many Americans may nevertheless share his views.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Trump’s personal attacks on experts represent a dangerous and politically consequential form of anti-intellectualism, one long seen in American life. In my new book Anti-Scientific Americans, I build on historian Richard Hofstadter’s Pulitzer Prize–winning work Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, by conceptualizing anti-intellectualism as the emotionally evocative dislike and distrust of scientists, college professors and other experts. Anti-intellectualism is much more than just the rejection of the scientific method or rational thought. It’s personal.
Here’s what I have found from public opinion data spanning nearly eight decades that trace the prevalence, political origins and consequences of anti-intellectualism in the U.S.: Nearly one third of Americans have held anti-intellectual views at any given point in the past several decades. Republicans became especially likely to hold these views in response to the Tea Party movement of the 2010s, which often embraced anti-expert rhetoric to challenge President Obama’s health and environmental goals. The politicization of the COVID response has only worsened this trend, likely resulting in part from Trump’s vituperation.
Fundamentally, anti-intellectualism threatens evidence-based policymaking by motivating dangerous opposition to scientific consensus on important issues related to public health, climate change and the economy. Americans who hold anti-intellectual views were more resistant to vaccinating against COVID in the early days of the pandemic; more likely to believe that climate change is not human-caused; and more likely to express misperceptions about macroeconomic performance. We see this right now in conspiratorial claims of “faked” good economic news from voices such as Elon Musk, the rumored elevation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a key health advisor to former president Trump, and unhinged claims of government-made hurricanes from Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.
Worse, the prevalence of anti-intellectualism in the American public tells policy makers that they ought to reject experts. I show that Congress tends to call on public health experts, climate scientists and economists dozens of times less frequently (per congressional session) at times when public anti-intellectualism is comparatively high (potentially resulting from media attention to attacks on scientific expertise).
Anti-intellectualism is a prevalent and pervasive force in American public life. Yet I believe that change is possible.
One way to improve Americans’ trust in experts may be to stimulate their curiosity in science. Those who express elevated interest in new discoveries, space exploration and technology over time become less likely to hold negative attitudes toward scientists and other experts.
Social psychology offers some clues as to why stimulating interest in science may play a uniquely powerful role in restoring trust in experts. In theory, people who are curious about scientific topics tend to be more interested and open to exploring new ideas; even if those ideas challenge their previously held beliefs. Psychologically, we might say that people who are highly motivated to consume information about science tend to be more “cognitively open.”
Recent research shows that cognitive openness resulting from elevated science curiosity can encourage Americans to embrace scientific consensus on climate change. That’s distinct from partisans already equipped with a scientific education. Peer-reviewed research from Yale Law School’s Dan Kahan and colleagues finds that people who are more knowledgeable about basic science facts and the scientific method frequently use that information to affirm (rather than challenge) their beliefs. For example, highly knowledgeable Democrats are more likely to believe that climate change is human-caused, whereas highly knowledgeable Republicans are less (not more) likely to do the same. People who are simply highly curious about science, on the other hand, tend to be more accepting of climate science, irrespective of their partisan identity.
In Anti-Scientific Americans, I show that this basic psychological process extends to the public’s views of scientific experts. Where some might be motivated to harbor skepticism toward scientists’ alleged political and financial motivations, curiosity about the work they do appears to suppress those negative attitudes. As I have shown in previous research, stimulating curiosity may be especially impactful among young adults entering critical years in the development of their attitudes toward science.
One powerful way to restore trust in experts in “antiscientific America” may be to expose young children and teens to the marvels of scientific advancement. Actions like Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s initiative to make the Boston Museum of Science free to all public school children on a monthly basis may provide students with greater access to the marvels of scientific achievement. This may in turn stimulate lifelong curiosity about scientific topics and, correspondingly, increase trust in scientific experts.
Efforts like Wu's suggest that protecting experts’ role in the policymaking process, and the evidence they bring to bear on important issues of the day, may therefore itself be a matter of public policy. I look forward to further efforts to increase young Americans’ access to scientific advancements, and remain hopeful about the role these might play in restoring America’s faith in experts.
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.