A predictable feature of the ills that currently plague science disciplines is the claim that there is a “War on Science,” conducted, of course, by people who don’t “believe in” science. None of the ongoing issues around fraud in science (and math!) are supposed to impact the disciplines’ public reputation at all.

Science Under Siege (2025) is a new book by climate scientist Michael E. Mann and vaccine pediatrician Peter J. Hotez.

From pandemics to the climate crisis, humanity faces tougher challenges than ever. Whether it’s the health of our people or the health of our planet, we know we are on an unsustainable path. But our efforts to effectively tackle these existential crises are now hampered by a common threat: politically and ideologically motivated opposition to science. – From the Publisher

Heady stuff.

At Ars Technica Diana Gitig helpfully summarizes their thesis:

“There is, unquestionably, a coordinated, concerted attack on science by today’s Republican Party.”

They’ve helpfully characterized “the five principal forces of antiscience “ into alliterative groups: (1) plutocrats and their political action committees, (2) petrostates and their politicians and polluters, (3) fake and venal professionals—physicians and professors, (4) propagandists, especially those with podcasts, and (5) the press. The general tactic is that (1) and (2) hire (3) to generate deceitful and inflammatory talking points, which are then disseminated by all-too-willing members of (4) and (5).

There is obviously a lot of overlap among these categories; Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, Rupert Murdoch, and Donald Trump can all jump between a number of these bins.

“The current war on science, and who’s behind it,” September 27, 3035

So, in a rare turn of events, lack of trust is not motivated by behavior within the disciplines themselves… It’s all the fault of a political party in the United States. And it can be remedied by angry trips to the polls?

Life has a way of providing its own mute commentary on this approach. From yesterday’s headlines:

At the student newspaper The Daily Pennsylvanian:

Mann stated that his scientific advocacy work conflicts with Penn’s “established institutional neutrality policy.” The announcement came two weeks after Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) called for Penn to take action against Mann in light of his social media activity — including reposts and a since-deleted post of his own — regarding the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Ayana Chari and Ethan Young, “Michael Mann resigns from role as vice provost for climate science, policy, and action,” September 30, 2025

Newsbusters offers a more detailed version of the story: “Climate Doomsayer Michael Mann Resigns After Smearing Charlie Kirk as Head of ‘Trump’s Hitler Youth’”:

“This is despicable behavior,” Senator Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) wrote in a social media post condemning Mann’s smear of Kirk:

“This dangerous rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated. I unequivocally condemn this behavior and demand UPenn to take immediate, decisive action.” Craig Bannister, September 30, 2025”

If Michael Mann really wanted to avoid politicizing science, he could have at least started by setting an example.