Jason Benell lives in Des Moines with his wife and two children. He is a combat veteran, former city council candidate, and president of Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers. A version of this essay first appeared on his Substack newsletter, The Odd Man Out.

Republicans, particularly Iowa Republicans, seem to have a serious problem with science and the scientific method. Their actions and rhetoric treat science as if it is some monolithic thing to appeal to or a lever you can pull to look good and reasonable in the face of scrutiny. However, like so many concepts and principles that require thought and consideration, they seem to really struggle with science and the scientific method. 

So often, Republicans substitute a tradition or a belief or cultural icon for science, in order to justify some action or some policy proposal. It is a common refrain, with scientific and secular organizations lining up with data, expertise, and testable hypotheses on one side of an issue. On the other side—the Republican side—there are faith-based organizations and Very Concerned Citizens who have little to no scientific data to back them up. These folks tend to view science the same way they view their favored religious text: as an authoritative source of knowledge that must be appealed to, rather than a process that should be applied and worked through.

This way of thinking about science as a magic buzzword is not a recent phenomenon; it goes back decades. A cornerstone of conservative ideologies is to co-opt the term science and generate “alternative facts” to appeal to folks as a rationale for their positions. Republicans will claim to like science much in the same way they will claim a great many things. But if you attempt to deconstruct or cite their work, there is often nothing under the hood. They have gone so far as to create entire alternative collection of institutions with the sole purpose of “teaching a controversy” where no scientific controversy exists.

Examples of yesteryear will include scientific evidence that smoking doesn’t cause cancer, leaded gasoline is acceptable, or that burning fossil fuels is neutral to the environment. In each of those cases, a handful of dubious studies supported the conservative position, while a mountain of data pointed to the opposite conclusion.

Also, as one would expect, moneyed interests with a strong grip on the party tend to drive a lot of these decisions.

There are many examples of this, but we don’t have to look much further than the last few legislative sessions here in Iowa, as well as the current one.

Take, for example, the recent proposed changes to Iowa’s science education standards. Not only did the Iowa Department of Education attempt mislead the public on what the committee of science educators signed off on (an entirely different topic on government transparency and oversight), they are also trying to change what it means to teach science. They wish to remove references to human caused climate change despite the mountains of evidence that has accumulated since the early 1900s. 

If Republicans were interested in science and accurate information, why discount the evidence here? This state agency is also trying to remove language that is the cornerstone of modern biology—biological evolution—because it threatens certain world views. That is not being careful and accurate with information; it is an intentional misrepresentation of scientific data. They seek to hamstring future generations by leaving them less prepared and capable of understanding the world around them, and also less able to compete in a global marketplace for jobs and expertise. Why would employers and leaders want a population that doesn’t understand basic biology for the next cancer research breakthrough or energy development?

Another example: Republicans in the Iowa House and Senate are backing bills that would require schools to show students a computer-generated video containing inaccurate markers and language about fetal development. Under the guise of “teaching science,” this bill and others like it exempt the curriculum from scrutiny by scientific and medical organizations representing professional obstetricians and pediatricians.

If you were interested in science, why would you draft bills that cut out the scientific state and national organizations? Why would you favor the rhetoric of religious and cultural organizations over the objections of experts with scientific citations, if you cared about science as a method and not a cudgel? Regardless of your views on prenatal care, shouldn’t Iowans be concerned that the ruling political party is intentionally subverting the scientific method to appease their donors?

A final example to use is the very serious issue of water quality in the state of Iowa.  This has far-reaching implications for Iowans’ health and well-being—with cancer rates rising and our waterways becoming unsafe for recreation and consumption. In addition, it raises questions about the long-term sustainability of our agricultural industry. 

The scientific community has been ringing alarm bells on the lack of conservation efforts by the state when we see record levels of nitrates in the water here in Iowa as well as further downstream. Instead of analyzing the scientific data, the Republican Party has done exactly the opposite. They’ve tried to shut down measurements and gathering of scientific data. They try to put political operatives and lobbyists in charge of conservation efforts, instead of scientists.

Even though study after study and paper after paper show the damage large-scale animal confinements (CAFOs) are doing to our local environment, Iowa Republicans are still full steam ahead. If there is no data, then there can’t be any bad news. Apparently that is what “scientific” means to a Republican.

Things has gotten so bad that for the first time in memory the EPA has threatened to step in and do the state’s job by adding waterways to Iowa’s impaired waters list.

Nothing to see here, it’s fine. WE SAID IT’S FINE.

Using science and the scientific method made our towns, cities, state, and country a destination for progress and a higher standard of living. When one political party opposes the scientific method, it can only lead to worse and worse outcomes. From water quality to nutrition programs, from basic education to improved infrastructure, from planning for tomorrow to planning for the next decade, every institution relies on the scientific method to find the best predictions and outcomes. Science is why we have such a high standard of living and why you can read articles like these. Why would Republicans want to subvert it for short-term gain?

Insurance companies raise or lower rates or pull out of states based on science, not whims. Athletic directors and coaches use science—not folksy stories of grit and determination—to enhance nutrition and strength and conditioning programs. Advanced materials used in construction of automobiles and buildings aren’t based on lobbyist declarations, but on science. When we turn our back on science in favor of special interest groups or to protect bad actors, we are turning our back on what makes all our lives better.

Republicans do not seem to be interested in using science to better govern. From pulling out of the WHO, to disinvesting in renewable energy, to questioning the efficacy of vaccines, to halting cancer research, they put all of us at risk.

Here in Iowa, Republicans seem to be following the national lead by doing everything they can to justify inaction on environmental issues and reshaping the education curriculum. In the face of scientific opposition, they cite faith-based rhetoric or, more often than not, simply don’t respond and just drive forward. That dangerous and regressive approach hurts us all. In fact, one could say being an Iowa Republican is to sign on to the idea that science shouldn’t inform public policy, but is an excellent buzzword to confuse the public.

Republicans have a problem with science, and if they have a problem with science, we should have a problem with them.