Most will remember that Katrina Kariko and Drew Weissman won the Nobel Prize in 2023 for their mRNA vaccine research that resulted in a very efficacious vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. We expressed our gratitude to them for saving many lives during the Covid-19 pandemic. Surprisingly, some weeks ago, headlines in newspapers stated “Lifesaving mRNA vaccine technology appears targeted under Trump and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.” and “Trump administration at ‘war’ with mRNA technology.” Science is facing an existential crisis. Trust for science seems iffy now in many countries.

There is greater denial of science now than before. Consequently, the role of science and scientific knowledge in decision-making for social good appears questionable. However, those of us who believe in the relevance and power of science need to defend science without being abrasive. Science is anchored on a set of principles. Based on experimentation, observation and logical argumentation, it generates an organized body of knowledge most of which are applicable for public good, either immediately or in the longer term.

Advertisement

The method of science makes its conclusions universally applicable. Practitioners of science derive conclusions on their own, obtain views on these from their peers, publish results in widely-read journals, which then are replicated by some peers. Sometimes, conclusions need to be modified. The process is repeated until the results turn out to be broadly applicable, that is, generalizable. In nonexperimental sciences, logical inferences are deduced based on observations that are desig – ned to be free of subjectivity and bias. This nature of drawing conclusions in science makes the conclusions reliable and inclusive. Therefore, science has play – ed a major role in societal decision-making.

There are, of course, some black sheep even among scientists ~ those who violate the principles and the process of science. They cause harm to science. However, they are a minority. Peers and the society punish them when their machinations come to light. Science needs to be distinguished from scientists and even scientific institutions. However, at the moment some segments of societies are creating a huge confusion by putting them all in the same basket. This is resulting in the percolation of an incorrect belief that science is evil.

The social contract of science is now threatened. The relationship between science and society is dangerously being altered by certain vested interest groups, especially political groups. There is cause for alarm; we must act now. If societal-decisions are not based on scientific evidence, society will suffer irreparable damage sooner than later. For example, mRNA vaccines have come under fire from the Trump administration be – cause there is a belief ~ albeit in – correct ~ that the vaccines contain cells from aborted foetuses.

The testing of mRNA vaccines uses cell lines; some developed from past abortions. However, the vaccines are not manufactured in cell lines and do not contain foetal cells. Then there is a whole set of people who do not believe that anyone should get vaccinated. They believe that the immunity that vaccination provides can be gotten just by interacting with people during a period of spread of the infection. This is called herd immunity. For herd immunity to kick in, a large fraction of a population has to become immune to the infection.

This can happen if many persons are able to survive from infection naturally, but vaccination ~ even if an artificial method ~ is a more potent method to induce immunity to the infection. Without vaccination, a large number of infected persons will die before a sufficient number of persons survive the infection because of their natural immunity. The argument against vaccination that herd immunity suffices is a weak argument; it cannot be tenable as a public health policy until one is sure that a large fraction of a population has gained immunity to the infection.

Dogmatic and geopolitical considerations ~ as we had witnessed in debates centred around the origin of Covid ~ that confused the world about the science of immunisation are deplorable. The consequences of arguments with low credibility have a long-lasting negative impact on the scientific temper of populations. In everyday life, people not only use science, but combine a variety of knowledge derived from other sources in which they trust; these sources include religion, indigenous knowledge, culture, and the like. The contemporary issue is the perception of science. There seems to be a distrust for science. However, from various considerations and evidence it appears that the distrust is not so much about the knowledge that science creates, but more about declaring that science is the way of life.

Under threat now is the social contract between science and society. Scientists as a community must sit up and act. Science and scientists are lauded during war times ~ for example, most recently for drones and AI. However, we are concurrently also witnessing events that disrupt the pursuit of science. This is a cause of alarm. Without allowing unfettered pursuit and promotion of science, society will suffer, altho – ugh the suffering may not be palpable in the short term. Academic freedom is the key. But now this freedom is curbed in many countries, sometimes directly but often indirectly.

The nature of science to be pursued is directed by providing large research funds to some domains of science and by not providing or providing minimal funds to other domains. Scientists are now faced with the challenge of confronting this cherry-picking. Scientists must come together and we must use our collective abilities to prevent the loss of respect and trust in science. And also reinforce the social contract between science and society for public good and as a pillar of social, economic and political progress.

The firm belief that science should value and promote diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility is being tossed out in some countries. We should firmly protest. To protest it is not necessary to be a scientist. As a leader of the Stand Up for Science movement has said “… we believe that science is for everyone. Everyone benefits. It doesn’t matter what political affiliation you have, at the end of the day, science is for everyone,” and that’s why we must all fight to retain the trust for science.

(The writer is National Science Chair, Government of India)