Biopolitics, Pseudoscience and Science Denialism in the United States

Abstract

Abstract As the nation that hosts most of the leading institutions in biomedical sciences, the United States of America has been a major battleground between science versus biopolitics inspired pseudoscience and science denialism, especially in recent years. Two major examples of the latter are the antivaccination and antiquarantine movements. They incorporate various features of pseudoscience including working in isolation, evading peer review, escaping to the mass and social media, no self‐correction over time, relying on fictional or obsolete theories for nature, and having no boundaries for claims. They are harmful for society and in addition to promoting false ideas; they cause a lot of mortality and morbidity. Bioethics can provide an ethical framework to address such problems. Such framework consists of virtues, such as care and honesty; principles, such as social value and scientific validity, and case‐based approaches that can be implemented by institutions such as the Institutional Review Boards. Key Concepts Science is the result of a history of honest and systematic efforts to remove biases and heuristics from the process of obtaining knowledge. Biopolitics is the interference of politics in the realm of life sciences. Following the good and reliable science entails adopting a scientific attitude, following valid scientific methods and conducting science in a democratised way. Not following the scientific standards where they should be followed leads to development of pseudoscience and science denialism. They are harmful for the society. Antivaccination and antiquarantine movements are two prominent examples of pseudoscience and science denialism in the United States of America. Bioethics can provide a framework to address biopolitics inspired pseudoscience and science denialism at different levels. The abovementioned bioethical framework entails Virtues such as honesty and care; principles, such as social value and scientific validity; and case‐based deliberations.