Science or Ideology—Pick One

Dr. Vinay Prasad’s brief removal from the FDA wasn’t just political drama—it laid bare the growing dominance of ideology over science.

Less than two weeks after his forced resignation, Dr. Vinay Prasad has returned to the FDA as head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), where he will again oversee the regulation of vaccines, gene therapies, and blood products. His removal wasn’t the result of scientific incompetence, but political pressure—much of it stirred by conservative activist Laura Loomer.

His return is encouraging, especially given reports of support from Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and colleagues within the FDA. His reinstatement suggests reform is still possible. But the fact that he was pushed out at all is a stark reminder: science is fragile when it threatens entrenched beliefs and self-interest—whether political, ideological, or corporate.

Second Opinion: The MAHA Movement and Lessons of a Forced Resignation

AP News: Ousted FDA Vaccine Chief Vinay Prasad is Returning to the Agency

---

Science and ideology are not allies. They operate on opposing principles. Ideology thrives on certainty; science survives on doubt and curiosity. Despite popular phrases like “settled science,” science, by definition, is never settled. Its purpose isn’t to confirm dogma—it’s to challenge assumptions and test ideas until they fail. Any claim that cannot be falsified—like a belief in ghosts or reincarnation—may be interesting, but it isn’t science.

Science, when practiced honestly, follows the evidence. And good evidence requires rigorous study design, precise execution, and impartial analysis. Even then, the conclusions are always provisional, subject to revision when better evidence emerges.

Ideologies, by contrast, are systems of belief—sometimes religious, sometimes political, sometimes cultural. Their origins may be ancient or nebulous, but their influence is persistent. They shape our worldview, inform our values, and often resist contradiction. When challenged by evidence, we tend to dismiss the data or discredit the source rather than question our beliefs.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a having a system of beliefs and opinions—in fact, they are part of what make us human. They are essential for making sense of our lives, helping us navigate meaning, morality, and identity. But ideological beliefs do not belong in the lab.

Science is a relatively new way of understanding the world. Ideology is ancient. Their tension is long-standing. In 1553, Nicolaus Copernicus published his mathematical and astronomical findings supporting a heliocentric view of the universe. Ninety years later, Galileo Galilei was tried for heresy by the Roman Catholic Church, forced to recant his belief that the Earth moves around the Sun, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

The details have changed, but the dynamic persists. In recent years, ideologies have once again hijacked scientific discourse. Topics like climate change, gender, and COVID have become ideological battlegrounds. To question prevailing narratives—or even suggest alternative interpretations—is to risk ridicule, censorship, and professional ruin.

Ideological interference in science is not confined to one side of the political spectrum. On issues like vaccines, for example, we’ve seen skepticism emerge from both the right and the left—sometimes for different reasons, but with similarly corrosive effects on scientific discourse.

Ironically, that convergence across traditional ideological boundaries could offer an opportunity. If both sides can acknowledge the damage ideology inflicts on science, there may be a path to common ground—one rooted not in shared beliefs, but in shared desire for good evidence and public benefit.

Science thrives when ideas are tested, not protected. It advances through doubt, not dogma. Ideology demands loyalty. Science demands humility.

When ideology seeps into science, discovery becomes propaganda. Only the “right” research gets funded. Inconvenient findings are buried. Conclusions are shaped before the data are collected. The result isn’t stronger policy—it’s weaker science, lost trust, and slower progress.

If we want science to serve the public good, it must follow evidence—not ideology. And if we want real reform, we must protect those like Dr. Prasad—not because they are always right, but because they are willing to ask the questions that ideology refuses to entertain.