Letters: October 2021

Political arguments

Philip Ball’s criticism of Anna Krylov’s essay about the increasing politicisation of science misses Krylov’s points entirely.

Raised in the USSR, Krylov experienced first-hand how Soviet ideology permeated science and education. With this background, Krylov offered an important perspective on the interaction between politics and science. Her article has attracted significant attention – more than 50,000 views – and much discussion on social media.

Ball’s main point is that science is and has always been political, and therefore the idea that science and politics should be separated is naive. Few scientists would disagree; anyone who has ever written a grant knows that funding priorities are dictated by culture and politics. In this sense, science and politics are intertwined.

However, Krylov means something entirely different by ‘politicisation of science’. She means the imposition of ideological viewpoints on science, with the (perhaps unspoken) demand that scientists conform to them. Past examples and their disastrous consequences are well-known: recall Lysenkoism, eugenics and social Darwinism. Krylov identifies current tendencies in the sciences and society that mirror these past perturbations of the scientific enterprise. Her worries about damage that such intrusion causes are well-founded.

Rather than focusing on the points Krylov made, Ball attacks a strawman of his own creation: diversity in science, a subject discussed nowhere by Krylov. Focusing on this topic, Ball creates the false impression that Krylov’s paper is at odds with this important issue. This is ironic, as Krylov is known for promoting gender equality in her field.

I am sure that Krylov’s essay will remain widely read despite Ball’s attempt to distort its message.

Andreas Bikfalvi

Bordeaux, France

Response from Philip Ball: Andreas Bikfalvi has expanded on his position elsewhere, and I have argued here that he totally misrepresents the issues.