Bridging Science and Politics: Dr. Keith Grant on Evidence, Policy, and Public Trust

The relationship between science and politics is more intertwined than ever before. From debates over climate change and public health to technological advancements and energy production, political choices are deeply influenced by scientific knowledge – or at times, by the selective use of it. The relationship between scientific expertise and political leadership is complex, sometimes collaborative and at other times disputable. 

To further explore this relationship, the Civitas One Team conducted an interview with Dr. Keith Grant of James Madison University. Dr. Grant is an Associate Professor of Political Science, engaging in collaborative and independent research specializing in international conflict and cooperation.

When Politics Ignores Science 

One of the strongest themes Grant highlighted was the growing disconnect between scientific evidence and political decision-making. Political decisions often begin with an ideological position whether those taxes, regulation, or government intervention. Such issues are approached backwards with a predetermined solution and a justification following. At times, said justifications are contradictory to well established research. Dr. Grant uses climate change as a striking example. Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus, leaders acting in political interests downplay the severity.  

Dr. Grant explains this phenomenon isn’t recent, however, it is proving to be increasingly worsening. Industries have long sought to undermine inconvenient scientific claims threatening profit. Look at cigarette companies as an example. Until recently denying the link  between smoking and cancer was good for business. The current concern lies in the direct attack on science itself. Rather than debating policy responses, many leaders frame the science as biased, elitist, or inconclusive. A tactic intended to misinform the public and diminish trust in experts, bargaining political gain. 

This dynamic is creating a dangerous cycle. When political leaders undermine experts, the public can turn to misinformation or develop a “do your own research” attitude, turning to search engines and social media rather than scholarly evidence. In the medical field, this has detrimental consequences. The public is becoming more hesitant to accept vaccination treatments and preventatives recommended by medical doctors, yet lack the expertise and training to assess and research themselves. “People will die as a result. And it’s unfortunate, but it’s avoidable,” Grant warned. 

A Communication Gap 

Dr. Grant acknowledges that academics also face challenges in the ever changing relationship. Specialists often use discipline-specific jargon that can alienate the public and deter politicians from translating the complex findings. Bridging this gap requires a sort of middleman. People who have enough expertise on technical details and effectively communicate them to policymakers and the public. 

Dr. Grant expressed that liberal arts education can play a role in solving this. By requiring students to engage across disciplines, universities can cultivate graduates who are “jacks-of-all-trades”- well rounded individuals who have enough understanding to dissect specialized work and the communication skills to translate it. 

The Covid-19 Pushback 

Dr. Grant took some time to highlight the Covid-19 pandemic as an exceptional example of the fragile relationship between science and politics. As Dr. Grant explained, the rapid development of vaccines was an extraordinary scientific achievement which came as a result of years of research combined with massive government support. Yet, instead of becoming a success story, the rollout of the vaccines became deeply politicized. 

Grant noted that early shifts in public health guidance (ie, masking) were examples of science working well in society: adapting guidelines as new evidence emerged. However, many Americans saw these adjustments as inconsistency or incompetence. Dr. Grant explains, though, this is how leaders should behave – admitting when they are wrong and adjusting to make better decisions. 

The mistrust quickly polarized the public and spiraled into broader pushback, both against vaccines but also the scientific establishment itself. Medical conspiracy theories spread fast and in volumes. Political leaders amplified much of this as part of a grander political agenda. As a result, the consequences were serious. Vaccine hesitancy slowed rollout efforts and promising lines of research, like mRNA technology with potential treatment advancements, faced defunding. 

Generational Shifts

Looking forward, Dr. Grant placed his hope in younger generations arguing that students today are more willing to accept scientific realities. Grant argued the younger generation will face the brunt of consequences that arise from issues such as climate change. Because of this, more young people are willing to recognize where science should supersede political agendas. Looking at leadership, younger and more diverse crowds are encouraged to step up. 

Where Science and Policy Do Work Together 

Despite the frustrations the research community faces, Dr. Grant stressed that history offers plenty of examples where science and policy have aligned with favorable results. Public health is a clear case. Vaccine schedules, for instance, were once widely accepted across the political spectrum – the idea of protecting the vulnerable. Similarly, decades of medical research and public advocacy eventually pushed back on tobacco manufactures enabling the public to make an educated decision on smoking.

Benefits stretch beyond the medical field into technological advancements. Everyday resources such as cell phones and the internet were originally based on public funding. These show that science and policy alignment can drive innovation. 

Closing Thoughts

Dr. Grant’s reflections reveal a pertinent issue of our time: science has the power to solve urgent problems, however, politics often determine whether that knowledge is embraced, ignored, or undermined. The stakes are evident: when ideology comes before evidence, the consequences ripple across public health, security, and the economy. 

Yet, the interview highlights a sense of optimism. History is full of examples where science and policy worked hand in hand to produce breakthroughs. These successes remind us that government investment in research drives innovation and secures America’s global standing. 

The relationship between science and politics will always be strained. Establishing a balance between the two depends on action, both from the public and government. This includes accountability. Politicians must not sideline scientific evidence for the sake of a political agenda, while the public must voice concern for important issues and demand higher ideals from their leaders. Simultaneously an acknowledgement of policy and science working together is imperative to highlight success.