Scientific Thinking and Politics

For a lifelong scientist, engaging in political discussions is significantly more challenging than delving into scientific matters. Nevertheless, certain moments compel me to voice my thoughts, particularly when encountering statements like this tweet from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:

“FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals, and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma. If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.”

From a non-American Korean perspective, the U.S. FDA is an admirable model to emulate. I wish that Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) could offer more substantial scientific guidance to the Korean pharmaceutical industry. While the MFDS’s response to COVID-19 was commendable, it would have been beneficial if it had also facilitated the development of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Achieving this requires increased funding, greater autonomy, and better support for staff. In these respects, the U.S. FDA appears more advanced than the Korean MFDS, which I believe contributes to the global leadership of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.

Analyzing the items purportedly suppressed by the FDA is daunting, but many do not seem directly linked to patent issues with pharmaceutical companies. As long as the FDA adheres to its policy of approving drugs based solely on scientifically robust evidence (though alternative policies remain unclear, at least to me), obtaining sufficient scientific backing for many of these items will probably demand significant time and funding. Without securing commercial viability through patent protection, companies may be reluctant to pursue such research.

A more complex dimension involves the threats faced by FDA employees. Politicians are tasked with resolving intricate problems. When issues become overly entangled, cutting through the knot may be necessary; however, determining when this drastic measure is warranted poses its own challenges. Not only the FDA but also numerous government agencies and organizations exhibit inefficiencies and irrationalities. Improving these systems effectively is no easy task; simply telling someone, “You are part of a corrupt system; leave,” is unlikely to provide a valid solution.

Political discourse often favors straightforward language over direct engagement with complex issues, which can enhance efficiency. Such rhetoric can clarify messages and simplify distinctions between parties involved. Therefore, while actual solutions may require nuanced approaches, employing simple language can help build momentum for implementing these strategies. This intersection is where a scientist’s approach to critical thinking meets that of a politician.

Just as I have served as a translator or facilitator bridging two distinct worlds - chemistry’s web lab and AI’s dry lab - I believe there are individuals who perform a similar role between scientists and politicians. Whether visible or not, I hope these individuals fulfill their roles effectively so that true collaboration can flourish between these groups instead of conflict.