Just the Facts—The Dangers of House Speaker Johnson’s Anti-Science Views

Apparently, Mike Johnson, the new Speaker of the House, a Republican from Louisiana, has not had a good scientific education.

As a climate skeptic, he doesn’t believe in the tsunami of data indicating that climate change is a consequence of human action. And his opposition to LGBTQ rights is couched in terms of what he calls natural. “Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural,” he wrote, and “the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone.”

As a gay biologist who researches the evolution of sex differences and sexual behavior, Johnson’s position is disheartening but not surprising. His statements reflect two mistakes that many members of the general public make when it comes to science: first, not understanding the quantity of data, and second, not understanding the quality of data.

The purpose of science is to explain observable phenomena and use that explanation to make useful predictions. In this context, the purpose of data is to determine whether the predictions support the explanation.

Surprisingly to many, scientists do not prove facts. Scientists generate data that either support or do not support a particular explanation. An alternative explanation is always possible.

For example, it is possible that climate change is caused by “natural cycles over the span of [the Earth’s] history,” as Johnson said in 2017. It is also possible that it is caused by the Earth moving closer toward the sun.

However, while there are natural cycles in global temperatures, their effects are too small and too slow to explain what is happening now. There is no evidence that the Earth is moving closer to the sun. Johnson makes a very common error in scientific thinking: asserting explanations that are not supported by data.

Similar errors were made with the ideas that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism and that wearing face masks doesn’t prevent the spread of COVID-19.

To be fair, Johnson did say that he does not believe that climate change was due to human activity. Belief is personal acceptance of a statement or explanation and does not require data—because belief is intrinsically subjective, it lies outside of science.

The second related error in scientific thinking is the idea that all data is equal. It is unclear what studies Johnson was referring to when he said homosexuality was harmful, but the Christian Medical and Dental Associations note that gay men have reduced life expectancy. What they don’t say is that this statement is based on a 1997 study of the impact of HIV and AIDS on gay men in Canadian urban centers.

With the development of effective AIDS treatments and HIV prophylactics, the situation is very different now. A 2023 study, “Accelerating Acceptance,” showed a majority of “non-LGBTQ Americans believe that LGBTQ people should have the freedom to live their life and not be discriminated against, and that schools should be a safe and accepting place for all youth.”

Subjectively picking and choosing which data to use to support an explanation, as Johnson has done, is not just bad science, it’s not science at all. To be sure, many scientists are guilty of these errors in quantity and quality of data. Knowingly ignoring or fabricating data to support for a particular explanation is scientific misconduct, and there are hundreds of examples of this.

Scientific education in the U.S. ranks among the best in the world. A Pew Research Center study showed Americans understand much more about scientific explanations rather than how those explanations are generated. This is because scientific education focuses primarily on the learning of scientific content rather than scientific process. This needs to change.

Next Generation Science Standards is an educational framework developed in 2013 by a consortium of 26 states and other parties that is designed to help students better understand the scientific process and evaluate scientific evidence.

As of March 2023, only 20 states have adopted the standard, and Speaker Mike Johnson’s state is not one of them. Further adoption needs to be encouraged through financial incentives from federal grants, similar to those that drove the roll out of Common Core math and English standards in 2010.

Federal research grants to institutions that serve undergraduate populations need to include broader impact activities that support research opportunities for undergraduates. Broader impact activities are required for National Science Foundation grants, but not for grants from the National Institute of Health, which funds the vast majority of university-based research.

Research scientists like myself need to do a better job at communicating their science to the public, not just providing scientific facts.

It may be too late for Johnson, who will likely cling to his beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. But it is not too late for all Americans to understand what science means—and doesn’t mean—and how it impacts our lives.

Alexander Shingleton, PhD, is a professor of biological sciences at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.