Imagine a world without our basic commodities. Imagine a world without antibiotics, where the simplest of infections could equate to a death sentence for you or your loved ones. Imagine a world without the internet, where it takes days to deliver or receive basic information needed to conduct daily life. Picture a world without GPS, where paper maps and guesswork are the only resources available for each of life’s journeys. What you’re imagining isn’t some dystopian episode of Black Mirror; it was our world mere generations ago. The difference? Science.

However, despite these remarkable advancements in technology, convenience, and medicine, a growing sentiment has emerged that questions the value of science. Some critics and politicians support cutting funding to science-focused agencies. Others, such as RFK Jr., promote harmful anti-vax rhetoric that is rooted in society’s inherent distrust and skepticism of “big brother”. While it is easy to see these theories as valid at surface-level, a closer examination confirms that science is still civilization’s best tool to ensure prosperity, progress, and problem-solving.

Science as the Engine of Progress and Prosperity

Let’s dive deeper into one of modern civilization’s greatest discoveries… the internet. The internet has embedded itself into just about every aspect of modern life, and it has revolutionized how we conduct business, learn, and connect with each other. Fundamentally, the technology’s origins lie within the government-funded research agency DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). Similarly, we can examine GPS, which has become ubiquitous within our cars, smartphones, and commercial supply chains. This technology was – you guessed it – developed and designed by scientists under federally-funded grants. It is important to note that these technologies were not developed solely by private sector industries; they required the long-term planning and investment that can only be effectively provided by government funding for public sector agencies and affiliates.

We can also find compelling arguments for federal funding of scientific research through an analysis of advancements in modern medicine. Antibiotics, which save countless lives every year, were born from decades of federally funded and supported research. The Human Genome Project – a massively complex and time-consuming project that successfully mapped human DNA – cost its creators billions of dollars and thousands of hours to complete. However, this multi-billion dollar investment of time and resources has since jump-started a biotechnology industry that is now worth trillions in GDP to the United States. This is a great example of why these projects are not costs to the US government… they are investments.

The Importance of Public Funding for Scientific Research

I will be the first to question government spending on a broad scale. This is not only natural – it is intelligent to do so and a product of a healthy democracy. The ideas of smaller government, lower taxes, and a healthier private sector resonate with many Americans and are foundations of the traditional Republican party. However, it is important to think about this with an educated and informed perspective that is clear of political and personal bias – especially when it comes to funding for scientific research. In light of DOGE efforts to cut federal spending, critics have recently pointed at silly and overfunded studies – such as the infamous “Shrimp on a Treadmill” experiment conducted in 2009 – to argue the idea that scientific research is often frivolous and wasteful. But context matters. Even that study, albeit both frivolous and likely wasteful on an individual level, was part of a broader research effort that has helped us understand marine biology and underwater ecosystems.

We also have to remember that private companies are driven by private motives. Publicly traded companies have an obligation first and foremost to deliver value to their oft-impatient shareholders. These organizations are unlikely to invest in foundational research efforts, especially if these efforts are unlikely to yield short-term revenue. The public sector has historically bridged this gap, allowing for the type of long-term research that is necessary to generate groundbreaking discoveries and significant societal advancements like the ones mentioned earlier in this essay. Cutting funding to these agencies isn’t “trimming the fat;” it is plugging the pipeline for future innovation.

Think of it like infrastructure. The construction and maintenance of roads and bridges is far from “sexy,” but neglect them and the economy grinds to a halt. The same can be said for science – it is the backbone of progress. Skimp on it now, and we’ll pay for it later in lost jobs, lagging technology, and unsolved problems.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Vaccines

We would be remiss not to consider your conservative relatives’ favorite talking point on Facebook – the anti-vax agenda. The anti-vaccination movement (anti-vax), championed by public “health” figures like RFK Jr. and Andrew Wakefield, is rooted in a deep-seated distrust of large corporations and public institutions. To their credit, it is true that big pharma has eroded public trust by 1. making scientific mistakes in the past, and 2. predatorily commercializing the treatment of illness to the benefit of their bottom line (see earlier paragraph about private sector priorities). However, this is where the evidence parts ways with the narrative.

Vaccines have been researched, probed, and tested more than just about any other form of medicine in history. We have decades – no, generations – of data that supports the notion that they are both safe and effective. Smallpox is completely eradicated. Polio is close. We had measles on the ropes until this false rhetoric allowed it to creep back into the picture as of late. And I can’t fail to mention the elephant in the room… the “link” between vaccines and autism. Fortunately, this narrative stems from a single study conducted in 1998 that has since been debunked, retracted, and exposed as a fraudulent imitation of real research. In the 27 years since this “study” was conducted, dozens of experiments have been conducted across millions of participants that have found zero connection between vaccines and autism. This argument may sound compelling when it is coming from the mouth of the now-secretary of HHS, but it all starts to crumble with any amount of real examination.

Regardless, some will still worry about potential side-effects or toxins that humans are exposed to through these vaccines. And it is true; most vaccines are delivered with a warning of rare, yet legitimate adverse reactions. But nothing in life is completely risk-free. Speaking of risk, your risk of dying from measles is about 1 in 1000, or .1%. The risk of a severe reaction to a medically-administered vaccine? About 1 in 1 million, or .0001%. That isn’t a conspiracy; it’s math… so pick your “poison”. Scientists aren’t hiding this from you either; it’s all out in the open for anyone to verify through their own research.

Science Isn’t Perfect, But It’s Self-Correcting

I don’t blame you if you’re skeptical of science itself. After all, it has been wrong before and will certainly be wrong again. Phrenology, the Miasma Theory, early climate research, and even initial COVID mask guidelines are all examples of times when science has steered us wrong at some point. Scientists are all humans, with their own biases, egos, and personal agendas, so a lack of trust can be seen as both natural and warranted. If we can’t unilaterally trust any one world leader, ideology, or religion, why should we trust science as one universal truth?

Here’s the difference: science isn’t an ideology or faith. It’s a method. A method with a motto – observe, test, revise. When science screws up, it leans on guardrails that comprise the foundation of the scientific method: peer-review, replication, and debate. Eventually, error and fraud are caught in one of these nets (like that autism study). Bad ideas are taken out back. Let’s compare that methodology with anecdotes, narratives, and ideologies… where are the guardrails there? Science never demands blind trust; it invites scrutiny. Dismissing it because it is imperfect is like totaling your car because it needs an oil change.

The Real Cost of Anti-Science Sentiment

Let’s take a step back to end this essay. RFK, DOGE, and the modern Republican party’s anti-science ideology – doubting the value of research and rejecting what science knows as fact – might feel like a refreshing stance against liberal manipulation and government overreach. But it’s a stance that comes with real consequences. Climate change, pandemic prevention, and the modern “space race” of technology competition aren’t just partisan talking points; they’re real issues that will eventually touch the lives of every American. Science gives us our best chance at standing up to these challenges. Not because it’s perfect, but because it’s rooted in evidence and thorough testing – instead of hunches and talking points. 

Supporting the current administration’s effort to slash funding for scientific research doesn’t make you prudent or anti-establishment; it makes you short-sighted. Our country is faced with a clear choice: back the community that has doubled our lifespans and built the modern world, or roll the dice with combative rhetoric and a desire for constant change from the current state. I’d argue that science has earned its place in our society. I’m not asking you to blindly believe everything that comes out of the mouths and labs of “experts” – I am asking you to trust a process that has proven to us that it works.