Are scientists now considered 'elites'?

Well, it has been quite a year. And while perhaps this isn’t the place to wring the political detritus from our spleens, I do think there is a reading of the recent political disruption that scientists should be mindful of.

Elitism. It’s the thing we have been constantly told is the root cause of the shifting centre of political gravity. All of it; Trump, Brexit, the rise of the European right – it all comes back to the idea that ‘elites’ are in charge, and they don’t give two privately educated, over paid, top-hat wearing hoots about the average person in the street. Hard not to accept at least some of that, but has anyone defined ‘elite’? There is clear evidence to suggest that this isn’t just a reaction against financial or social elitism, but also intellectual. And when anti-elitism spills over into anti-intellectualism that is very dangerous. There has been a clear swing against knowledge – the ‘experts’ have taken a real bashing over the last year. The thing is, scientists, also, are in the business of expertise.

But of one thing, surely, we must remain certain – knowledge is only ever a good thing. And I think as a group of people completely immersed in evidence, it befalls scientists to hammer home that message whenever we can.

And so we must wonder – has the mandate for gathering knowledge been taken? With recent budget announcements here in the UK it certainly seems as if this isn’t the case – science funding fared well – but can anything really be ruled out at the moment? If the development and application of expertise becomes seen as an act of mob-baiting ‘elitism’, then we will not only be on the path to cultural suicide, but actual suicide. Our species only thrives because of our ability to examine, learn and adapt. If we can’t do that then the clock is ticking on our existence.

Whatever your own thoughts on the recent political disruptions, I think we’d all agree these are uncertain times. But of one thing, surely, we must remain certain – knowledge is only ever a good thing. And I think as a group of people completely immersed in evidence, it befalls scientists to hammer home that message whenever we can. We need to reinforce the idea that while ‘experts’, of course, should never get a free ride – be critical, be sceptical, be aware of conflicting evidence – it is a mistake to disregard genuine attempts to understand the complex morass of the universe and our place within it as pie-in-the-sky, disconnected nonsense.

Something else, other than the general anti-elitism trend, also became very clear during Brexit and the US election. There is as real a rift between political parties and the electorate as there has been for many years. And, mindful of inducing a volley of moans from those who buy-in to the meme of over-reliance on experts, there is something biologists have to say about the increasingly partisan tribalism of our current political scene. Could it simply be an echo of our biology? And if so, is this to be embraced, or is it another of the instinctual traits that we must attempt to rise above?

Either way, the only way to even begin answering these questions is to arm ourselves with knowledge. It is time to put the ‘science’ in ‘political science’ – and in this month's guestbook we meet two political physiologists attempting just that.

Phil Prime, Editor