The Origins Podcast with Lawrence Krauss - Geoff Horsman | The War on Science Interviews | Day 13

Episode Date: August 6, 2025

To celebrate the release on July 29th of The War on Science, we have recorded 20 podcast interviews with authors from the book. Starting on July 22nd, with Richard Dawkins, we will be releasing one interview per day. Interviewees in order, will be:Richard Dawkins July 23rdNiall Ferguson July 24thNicholas Christakis July 25thMaarten Boudry July 26thAbigail Thompson July 27thJohn Armstrong July 28thSally Satel – July 30Elizabeth Weiss – July 31Solveig Gold and Joshua Katz – August 1Frances Widdowson – August 2Carole Hooven – August 3Janice Fiamengo – August 4Geoff Horsman – August 5Alessandro Strumia – August 6Roger Cohen and Amy Wax – August 7Peter Boghossian – August 8Lauren Schwartz and Arthur Rousseau – August 9Alex Byrne and Moti Gorin – August 10Judith Suissa and Alice Sullivan – August 11Karleen Gribble – August 12Dorian Abbot – August 13The topics these authors discuss range over ideas including the ideological corruption of science, historical examples of the demise of academia, free speech in academia, social justice activism replacing scholarship in many disciplines, disruptions of science from mathematics to medicine, cancel culture, the harm caused by DEI bureaucracies at universities, distortions of biology, disingenous and dangerous distortions of the distinctions between gender and sex in medicine, and false premises impacting on gender affirming care for minors, to, finally, a set of principles universities should adopt to recover from the current internal culture war. The dialogues are blunt, and provocative, and point out the negative effects that the current war on science going on within universities is having on the progress of science and scholarship in the west. We are hoping that the essays penned by this remarkable group of scholars will help provoke discussion both within universities and the public at large about how to restore trust, excellence, merit, and most important sound science, free speech and free inquiry on university campuses. Many academics have buried their heads in the sand hoping this nonsense will go away. It hasn’t and we now need to become more vocal, and unified in combatting this modern attack on science and scholarship. The book was completed before the new external war on science being waged by the Trump administration began. Fighting this new effort to dismantle the scientific infrastructure of the country is important, and we don’t want to minimized that threat. But even if the new attacks can be successfully combatted in Congress, the Courts, and the ballot box, the longstanding internal issues we describe in the new book, and in the interviews we are releasing, will still need to be addressed to restore the rightful place of science and scholarship in the west. I am hoping that you will find the interviews enlightening and encourage you to look at the new book when it is released, and help become part of the effort to restore sound science and scholarship in academia. With no further ado, The War on Science interviews…As always, an ad-free video version of this podcast is also available to paid Critical Mass subscribers. Your subscriptions support the non-profit Origins Project Foundation, which produces the podcast. The audio version is available free on the Critical Mass site and on all podcast sites, and the video version will also be available on the Origins Project YouTube. Get full access to Critical Mass at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/subscribe

Hi, and welcome to the Origins Podcast. I'm your host Lawrence Krause. As many of you know, my new book, The War on Science, is appearing July 29th of this year in the United States and Canada. And to celebrate that, we've interviewed many of the authors of the 39 authors who have contributed to this volume. And we have 20 separate podcast interviews

that will be airing over the next 20 days, starting July 22nd, before and after the book first appears with many of the authors in the book on a host of different subjects. The authors we will have interviews with in order of appearance over the next 20 days are Richard Dawkins, Neil Ferguson, Nicholas Christakis, Martin Boudre, Abigail Thompson, John Armstrong, Sally Sattel, Solveig Gold, and Joshua Katz, Francis Woodison, Carol Hoven, Janice Fiamengo, Jeff Horsman, Alessandro Strumia, Roger Cohen and Amy Wax, Peter Bogosian, Lauren Schwartz and Arthur Rousseau, Alex

Byrne and Modi Goren, Judith Sisa, and Alice Sullivan, Carleen Gribble, and finally Dorian Abbott. The topics that will be discussed will range over the need for free speech and open inquiry and science and the need to preserve scientific integrity stressed by our first podcast interviewer Richard Dawkins and will once again go. over historical examples of how academia has been hijacked by ideology in the past and the negative consequences that have come from that to issues of how specific disciplines, including mathematics have been distorted and how certain departments at universities now specifically claim that they

are social activists and a degree in their field is a degree in either critical social justice or social activism, not a degree in a specific area of scholarship, how ideology has permeated universities. We'll proceed also to discuss issues in medicine. Sally Settel will talk about how social justice is hijacked medicine. And also, when it comes to issues of gender affirming care, we have a variety of authors who are going to speak about the issues there and how too often gender affirming care claims are made that are not based on empirical evidence. In fact, falsely discuss the literature in ways that are harmful to young people. We will talk to several people who, for one reason, another, have been canceled for saying

things. Francis Whittleson at Mount Royal University in Canada and Carol Hoeven from Harvard, who eventually had to leave Harvard after saying on television that sex is binary in biology, we'll be talking to people who've looking at the impact of diversity, inclusion in academia and how it's restricting free inquiry and also restricting in many ways scientific merit at those universities. And finally, Doreen Abbott, the last contributor to our series, we'll be talking about three principles he believes are essential to separate science and politics and keep academia free from ideology and more for open questioning.

and progress and to make sure that science is based on empirical evidence and where we go where the evidence is, whether it's convenient or not, whether it's politically correct or not, and we're willing to debate all ideas that nothing is sacred, a central feature of what science should be about and what in some sense this podcast is about. So I hope you really enjoy the next 20 days and we've enjoyed bringing it to you. So with no further ado, the war on science, the interviews. Well, Jeff Horsman, it's a pleasure to see you virtually and have you here. I really appreciate you coming on and I also appreciate you writing a piece for the, for the volume. So thanks again. Well, thanks so much for inviting me. And it's an honor to be invited to write for the volume.

Oh, well, thanks. Well, you know, I want to, you may not have seen, know anything about or have seen the podcast before, but what I'd like to do, this is an origins podcast. And before, well, the purpose of this discussion day is to go is to talk about the piece you wrote for the book new come upcoming book the war on science and your your piece is entitled equity equity diversity and inclusion the dismal pseudoscience threatening science not a provocative title at all but we'll get well we'll get there but i've always interested in how people got to where they are both intellectually and in this case got to the point of of of talking about this issue but you know so but i want to go back a little further. You're a biochemist and chemistry by Wilford-Lory. So what got you interest in science

in the first place? I think I'd always had an interest in science as a kid. There was always a fascination with how things worked. I grew up on a farm and I think just questioning things, observing things, being out in nature, perhaps that it's something to do with it. I'm not sure. Yeah, but it then answers my next question. Because I always answer, the next thing I always think about is, well, if people are in science, why didn't they become a physicist? But if you go in a farm, I guess biology might have immediately been in your face, right? I suppose, perhaps. I mean, I guess I'm more on the chemistry side of biochemistry. Yeah, yeah. And, you know, actually, I did enjoy physics a lot.

That was probably my favorite in high school. But I don't think I have the intellectual horsepower to be a physicist. But, yeah, I've always enjoyed science. And then you should or do the standard. Did you do all your education in Canada? Yeah, all of my education. My post dog was in the U.S., but all my education was in Canada. Okay, and they came back to Canada.

And then, but I do note that at least for some time, you're interested, but at least you're activities have gone just, have gone beyond strictly in your field of chemistry and biochemistry. You got involved in the society. I think what's it called? The society for academic freedom and, is that what it's called? Yeah, SAFs, we call it affectionate. I know it's called SAFs, but I can remember what the acronym is for.

Yeah, that's right. Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship. A scholarship, that's right. What caused you to get involved at that? Well, this was really a result of having to write a grant. I don't know if I maybe discussed it peripherally in the piece, but in around 2021, I wrote a thing. It was what you discussed in the piece that got you involved.

It really precipitated that, right. Okay. Well, then let's just tell people, wait and listen, and you'll find out what caused you to do that. Because the piece is a person, is a wonderful piece. it's personal. And it starts out very personally. It starts out with a sentence. You should stop talking about EDI.

My colleague suggested to me over lunch. You've got a family, he said. Think about your kids, he implored. You know, and he said, I'll admit my heart rate increased. It sounded a lot like, nice family you got there. Wouldn't be a shame if you're no longer able to provide for them. And it was a very personal experience. And you said, unbeknownst to me, I was the focus of some consternation

among the faculty, and people were talking about you because you were thinking about, because you did what a scientist is supposed to do. You ask questions and ask for data. And it's worth reminding, and I like what you say, that liberal science has two rules. No one has the final say, and no one has personal authority. And I would add, because it's important for your discussion,

is that you better check with reality, every now and then to see if your ideas are right. And so what, what, what, what, what was the specific issue? Why don't you talk about that? Well, I guess if you want to go back to the, to the start, so, well, the specific issue you're talking about with respect to that quote, or are you talking about, okay, I'm thinking about if I read your piece, you're saying, I question my, let's, let's look at this Because you say there are a few issues.

There's your own grant writing, which I understand has caused a moral dilemma in your which is an understandable one in the context of what's been required, certainly in Canada, which is more explicit and still more, and now a lot more explicit than the United States in its requirements for group think. But you say first I question why my department was participating in racial discrimination by advertising exclusively for an indigenous professor. And I think that's a remarkable statement and one that I'm impressed with. A lot of people say, how can looking for an indigenous professor be participating in racial

discrimination? So why don't you go through your thinking there? Well, if you advertise for a particular ethnic group, well, of course, you're excluding all the others. I mean, it's very simple to me. I don't understand why this is hard. Now, in this particular case, it became very, I guess, in your face because a colleague from outside the department messaged me and said, hey, I hear you've got one of these positions. Now, at Laurier, we had two types, one for black scholars, one for indigenous.

And this colleague, I guess, didn't know which one we had and said, hey, I know this great black scholar. postdoc or something in the in the states you know maybe they could apply and i said well no black people are ineligible um and so i think this really brings to the forefront what exactly we're doing that it's inexcusable is so wrong uh it's again it's just it's not hard so yeah yeah no it's not a race you're excluding all the others But, you know, what's interesting is, is almost the 1984-like nature of the way this is done. Because this exclusion is part of a university program called inclusive excellence. Yes.

So you have inclusive excellence by excluding people, which was really, I guess, the logical conundrum, which you, like pointing out the emperor had no clothes, you were, had the temerity to ask. But the other thing that I thought was important is you said, that no evidence provided them. I mean, you might argue. well, look, you know, people are biased and they're not allowing these people to get in, which is fine, but you then ask, what's the evidence? She said no evidence was provided in the motivation of this program to demonstrate hiring biased against qualified indigenous or black applicants. So how could implementing concrete racial discrimination address a vague and unproven concept of systemic racism?

So you ask that question. Basically, as far as I know, you then ask for the department to write a memorandum saying, Hey, we'd like to know the basis of this discrimination, why some evidence for why this is happening. And the department rejected that, right? Right. I wanted to have really to protect ourselves and to assure applicants. So I wanted the department to ask the administration and say, what is the basis for this program? What evidence do you have that we've been excluding people based on race?

and, you know, surely we would want to do something to correct that or to outline the steps we've taken to address it because you're going to have trouble recruiting people from these groups. If by the very nature of the fact that we have a specific program to recruit them, we're admitting that we've been discriminating against them. I mean, why would you want to recruit people into a toxic work environment? So I just wanted some understanding of what was happening. And again, it was very clear or became clear that those types of questions are just not to be asked. You know, it's not polite. In fact, you really feel like you are being very naughty. Yeah, just shut up and go and do your work.

Yeah. I've had a few people said to me, I just want to know, what are you thinking? You know, it's sort of these private one-on-one. It's like, I just want to get a line on what you're thinking. And that, and that's the problem. I mean, one of the things we're trying to address in this book is, and is both for public to know, but more equally important by having people from within academia,

diversely, within academia, many disciplines, many political leanings, all pointing out the same problem saying, you know, there is a problem. It's not something you could just say, you know, there's a problem. It's a problem that you can't ask that question without being sometimes censored, sometimes removed. And it's a problem in academia when there is any question you can't ask. And, and, but you know, you point out something which I think is really, really important.

And I hadn't, it hadn't hit me in this way. And I'll, I'll paraphrate it because I've been thinking about how to say it that's even maybe stronger. He said, surely the definitely, so the. question is one of underrepresented minorities. And he said, surely the definition of underrepresented involves comparing an observed number to an expected number. One would certainly need to data to achieve this comparison. And boy, I mean, that's, you know, when you say it that way, it's so clear because when I argue with people say, well, what's the evidence? What's the data? All we, but, but the word underrepresented, I mean, if I'm doing a physics experiment and I see a bump in the data, what I do

I mean, I'm not an experimentalist, but I'm a theorist. But what a scientist does is they say, well, what's the predicted number? What's the expected number and uncertainty in that? And is it wildly different than you'd expect? But if you don't even know what you expect, then how can you know whether it's significant? And in this case, how can you say something's underrepresented when you don't know what underrepresented means? And in Canada, for example, I would argue underrepresented is vastly distorted.

Not only is it not known, but it's misused. For the example that in Canada research chairs now, where they have to match the demographics, the population, to the nearest percentage point, 50.8% after women, you know, a certain number have to be indigenous, a certain number have to be black, et cetera. But that's not underrepresented if you have less than that, because the relevant pool that you should be comparing them to,

is not the general population. It's the, it's the applicant pool. Right. You know, it's, again, it's like saying, gee whiz, there, they're, you know, in this chemical solution, I find very few carbon molecules, you know, and I know how much carbon there is in the environment. But, you know, hey what, this is, this is,

but I'm looking at, you know, an inorganic compound here that, you know, anyway, the point is that what you're comparing to. And I think that's a really important point that you make. and and and and and and then you ask yourself the question why why people are not reacting to this who are scientists who are trained in science and for which this should be obvious as you just said it's not rocket science why would anyone even ask why you're asking that question and you say it's fear so wait you want to elaborate a little bit on that yeah I think it is fear and it's hard to it's hard to know for sure

to the extent it is fear for all the people. I think some, for some people, they are enforcers. They really think that this is just, we can't allow people to question like this. This is really even racist to have these discussions. But for others, it is fear. And I'm involved in our local heterodox academy group at Laurier. And we've had professors say,

I don't really, even just to go to a pub night or a talk, they'll say, I'm just too scared to go to your event, even just to a lecture, because I worry the administration might be even watching who's going. So that people are admitting this, that this level of, like, I think it's irrational fear. Like, this is just, you know, actually, I don't think it's so irrational. I mean, I understand it at some level. Right. Because people who are aware are seeing that some people for asking the most innocuous questions or for being part of a group or whatever or being, you know, attending an event or promoting an event or as we'll talk about for you, you know, creating an event for discussion suddenly can get censured and it's happened get removed. And and, but you know, talk about what, let me give you an example of a, I mean, that's one thing.

They asked, when I wrote, I don't know with my first Wall Street Journal piece on the ideological corruption of science when I started to be concerned about this, when I wrote that, I got letters from Ferris faculty around the country, people I didn't know.

They all wrote from, none of them wrote from the university accounts, but a number of them wrote under pseudonyms because they were worried that someone in the administration would find out. All they said is we agree with you, it's a concern. It sounds like the Stasi and, you know, or Russia.

And it's terrifying. It's, it's terrifying. The academia has led people to think that they, that they should be afraid for their jobs or, or whether they're ostracized in their department for asking a question or agreeing with something it may not be politically correct or, or they don't even know if it's politically correct. And that fear is very, very real. And that itself is a cause. if there were no other, if there's nothing else, that's cause for concern.

Because in academia, if you're afraid, then you can't, I mean, if certain questions can't be asked, then knowledge stops, right? I think so. I do think it's, well, you say it's rational. I get your point to some extent, but I think it's over, it's overblown. Like, I just, it's, it's, people work up in their head that something bad is going to happen. happen. But, you know, like a good therapist would say, okay, well, what? Walk me through anything's going to happen. Like, is it realistic? And so I just think people need to maybe be a little more. I'll buy you there. I could give you counter examples in Canada

of someone who asked a question of faculty meeting and ended up losing their tenure position for asking the question. But, but, but you're right. It may be irrational. But, but this points at another thing, which has come up over and over again. And it's been my experience in academia. Academics are by nature incredibly timid. Yes. When it comes to anything outside their discipline, academia is a very safe environment, and that's one of the reasons why people flourish in it and feel that in any way, you know, other than your own work, which you can defend ad nauseum, because you have to, because that's the way the world works in academia. You expect people to attack your ideas. But academics as a rule are almost self-selected. It seems to me, as people

who have a hard time dealing with the possibilities and the personal conflicts and everything else that associated the world outside academia. So maybe it's not so true. Right. We do select for people who are risk-averse, you know, it's a fairly stable income. You kind of been trained for a long time what to do. So you don't really want to stick your neck out. And when someone comes along and tells you're going to have to start saying crazy things and political

statements say, okay, well, what's the harm? Yeah, what's the hell? What's the harm, as you point out? Yeah. Blondren can't keep doing my work. But what, what you, but getting back to the example you, you mentioned with a, with a, with the academic, in this case, I think it's, it demonstrates the real, one of the real problems. So in the end, you, so here was a search where, where you, where you couldn't take this black candidate.

and when I was chair of a department, by the way, we had a somewhat similar situation. There was an incredibly good black physicist who wanted to, his wife had been offered a position in another department of my university. And so I approached the administration saying, this is great because this is a, you know, diversity, I don't know what we called it at the time, equity candidate, whatever. But it's a great opportunity to get this great physicist.

And he's black, you know. And it turned out he was from the Caribbean. so that doesn't define as black because he's not African-American. So, I mean, and that, you know, anyway, but, but you, but in your case, it demonstrates the real problem because you, you got no applications for an indigenous scientist, right? And, and, and, and, and, and your original, no, let's see, your original, sorry, the position was offered, was given to another department. So, and that department hired someone from another who was already senior and already had a position from another university. So the effect was to not help anyone at all. All you did was increase someone's salary who was already not subject to, you know, a bias or inequity.

He was already had a, or he or she had a, already had a great position. So the effect was to deprive the really good black candidate and also not do anything for indigenous people one way or another, right? probably harm them. Okay, well, elaborate. Well, if you have these programs where you're hiring people because they have a specific ethnic characteristic, a non-academic qualification, well, what are people going to start to think about these groups in academia? It's going to do damage, right? People are going to think, okay, they're just a diversity hire.

And it's just, it's a terrible. Same for women and anyone else. If there's quotas, there's always an asterisk, in my opinion, on their name. And it really hurts the really qualified, excellent candidates who forever in some sense, one might imagine, are going to be dogged by that concern of others where they hired because of what they did or because of some characteristic over which they had no control in their lives. I think that does stay with them and haunt them throughout their careers, even if they are successful. they always wonder, well, who did I displace maybe, or am I really deserving?

But as you, and as you say, it's also racist, it's just discriminatory in a sense. It also leads to the impression that a certain group cannot compete. Of course. And needs, for whatever reason, and needs special dispensation because in an open playing field, they couldn't compete. Well, that's essentially racism right there. It is deeply, deeply racist. But you didn't stop there in terms of ruffling feathers, it turns out. As if that wasn't bad enough, you actually decided to do something horrendous.

You had a classroom discussion about what we call DEI, you call it EDI, about equity, diversity and inclusion, this acronym, which in general sounds good but means anything but. But you decided to let's have a discussion. And you did something horrendous. You had people on both sides of the issue. How dare you? Yeah, that's apparently not something you're supposed to do. Well, unofficially, of course, as all these things are.

Yes. Yeah, so I had a graduate course that I teach for our master's in chemistry students. It was really modeled off a similar course in the biology program. We worked quite closely between chemistry. chemistry and biology. It's like a pretty good, a good course that all students could take, whether they're organic chemists,

the biochemists. So it's going to be general research methods, how to write a proposal, how to present, maybe talk about peer review, some general issues in science. Of course, this biology class included things like a one course on EDI.

And initially when I was designing the course, I thought, I don't think I'm going to bother talking about, I don't really want to spend time on that. But then I started reviewing some scholarship applications. So PhD students, of course, have these NSIRC scholarships. Yeah. And in this scholarship application, the students had a special box where they had to

describe any EDI considerations to their research proposal. It was optional. But I think the plan was to start with this, then eventually make it mandatory, but it was sort of a pilot. And when I read these applications, I was surprised because every student filled it out. Now, most people in chemistry and biochemistry, you're looking at the molecular level or cells. They, it's not something. You know, so, but they would come up with some way to incorporate them because they thought

That's what I have to do is, in fact, my research with politics somehow to signal my political correctness. And that actually really woke me up and said, no, I think we have to address this. Because if our PhD students are being presented at this early stage with EDI statements, they're completely irrelevant, but it's normalizing. politicization of science. And I thought that wasn't okay. We have to talk about this. So I did have one section. You know, we had a weekly three hour course and I had one panel discussion on this.

And of course, just a small course. So I've had other panel discussions. I've been on them for courses and people just say, hey, you want to come and talk on a panel? Sure, I show up and we just talk about things. Yeah. But as it turned out, people, some of the EDI people just had no idea that I think it was beyond their realm of possibility that there would be anyone who would be contesting the politicization of science. And I didn't really find out right away, but even just in the last few weeks, I found out more that it went all the way out to the top of the university. and just shook things.

Wow. And I'm still finding it. I'm trying to get to the, I've got a meeting in the next couple weeks, even as a senior administrator, to learn a little more about, you know, what happened. So I don't know the full story. Yeah, well, but you're certainly clear you began to get signals. One, one was amazing in an astonishing commission you wrote,

in an astonishing commission of fundamentalism, an administrator for me that EDI is not debate. I mean, that's, you know, that's the secular religiosity that the fact that, I mean, the fact that any academic administrator would realize would suggest that any concept in, in any concept is not debatable. Right. That's such a person who shouldn't be an administrator at university. I mean, that's anathema to, to, and everything is debatable. And if, and to say that is such a shock. I mean, they can think it. And I've discovered, you know, I know, I know. a lot of people think it, but to overtly say it really demonstrates the degree of the problem. And I found it shocking. And then I found

equally shocking that you then, it turned out that there were I think you didn't with the request for you not efforts to get you out of the class. And it's true from the course. Yeah. It includes

an attempt to remove you from the course and being asked to apologize, to apologize for traumatizing people on the panel who didn't know there'd be people on the panel with dissenting opinions. I mean, you can't write that. It's shocking to me. Yeah, it is shocking. And I mean, I don't want to go into too much of the details because I don't want to. Yeah, I know. I know.

I don't want to put you in an awkward position. Right. But, but it's, and a lot of it's just in email, like it's documented. And even the whole story is far more scandalous with all the email trails of what happened. And I think one of the most disturbing things about the whole episode and things like keep continually confronting is the casual comfort with which people seem to lie. Either they're completely incommit and just are careless with the facts. But I don't think that's what's happening. I think it's just I'll say what I need to say in this moment.

and the next day when I get called out and I would just say, well, that doesn't make any sense, explain this to me. And then they'll just completely change their tune, right? So there's a casualness with the truth, which I think one of the things I hope this book can do again is help the public understand that we have a crisis of integrity at the institutions. of scientific integrity. And yeah, and so it's not a little thing for a scientist to make a little political statement because you can see the corruption all the way through that now people, if they lie a little bit, a little white lie, well, now they just, it feels like it just all of a sudden spreads like wildfire. That's the feeling I get.

It's just truth doesn't matter anymore. And yeah, and we'll get to that in a second because the notion that truth doesn't matter in the one area of human activity where truth should be the ultimate arbiter actually are falsehood in my opinion. But the the the the

the the but at the same time again once again you understand why people want to do it you quote examples I mean those kids who were doing the NSIRC were smart enough they were voting with their feet it was optional but they knew

that if they were to blank. They were at a disadvantage. And how do they know that? Well, they learn it from their mentors, as well as their peers who have applied before. The insert code for applicants states, and I guess it still does in Canada, although in the states, it's going away. The evidence is clear, it says. The evidence is clear. Equity, diversity, inclusion, strengthen the scientific engineering communities and the quality, social relevance, and impacts of research. Evan Scott, we know it. There's no reason. Evidence is clear. And of course, it requires, you know, statement. It requires statements supporting that notion when you're applying.

And that's the moral dilemma because you, if you're going to, and I know many of my colleagues in Canada who, in order to get their grants, have to give an EDI statement because it's required. And they have a moral dilemma because, you know, they either, they're either honest and they don't get the grant because they say, I don't discriminate. And that's not the right answer. or they openly lie or they just look up and find out, you know, where it was already written, where the right answer was written once, just like good students do somewhere. And it's when they're trying to, you know, do whatever they're doing. And they copy it. And as you point out, that's a moral dilemma that people have to face.

And the fact that scientists do it. And this is the end, the last part of your, what are the consequences, as you point out, the cost to both science and society. And the cost can be profound. You talk about the demoralization of science. You as a person with integrity was demoralized because you had to do it, right? And you got a grant and you felt guilty about it. Maybe you want to talk about that for a second.

Yeah, I mean, that was really the process that I guess brought me to where I am is writing this grant that had a really, I guess, draconian. EDI section where you really had to identify systemic barriers. They had a rubric. And it was pass fail. So there's an EDI section and they look at it. If you fail it, they don't even look at your science. You're done.

Yeah. So this was surprising to me and jarring. But again, I was naive at first. And I thought, well, there's probably a good reason for this. I just don't know what it is. and I'll do my research. And so I thought. You got the grant.

So what you must have. So I don't want to put you on a spot, but at some level, you, I'm assuming you had to pass, you passed rather than failed, clearly. I did. So whatever you said.

And that's what I feel bad about because I wrote the grant. I thought I was, I was, so actually when I wrote it, I'm trying to remember the details now because I said it to the research office to edit. and they changed it. And I accepted all their changes.

Because I knew that they knew what to say, right? Ah, okay. So, okay, that's a little better. Yeah. Research office guides for people who know. Okay. Yeah. And they crossed out some of the things that weren't right.

And then they added a sentence that something to the effect of I am committed to equity, diversity, inclusion. I left that in. And I think maybe this is rationalizing, but I thought at the time, well, what do I know? You know, like, maybe I'm just, like it was sort of, I'm trying to, maybe I'm hiding behind humility to some extent, but I think that was, that played into it to some extent was that I, yeah, I can understand here. And I hadn't had a lot of conversations at that time. I hadn't found SAFs yet. I was still isolated. So, I see. So it was a learn. This was all learning experience. It helped. It mean, so it, it, it was useful for you. And, and, and, and, and yeah, okay. And again. And again, when your research office tells you, you know, you want to study X. And if you want to study X and get supported to study X, you need to do this. Well, it's really easy that given the choice of studying X or not doing your research and not, you know, professionally moving forward and all the rest of the things, it's pretty clear where the pressure is. But you do point out, I mean, demoralization, you know, Balcla, Vaclav Havel talked about it in his power or the powerless, the demoralization. But you do mention a colleague of a friend of mine,

colleague of yours, as a chemist Anna Krilov, who is a chemist who's written at USC, who's written a lot about these issues because she came from the Soviet Union. And as I said to you, when I wrote that piece for the Wall Street Journal, the experience I got was very similar to those, what used to happen in Hungary or East Berlin or East Germany. People saying, I can't say this because I mean, I can't give my real name because people may find out. But the other impact is even actually more, actually you should point out, is almost worse for society. And that is, I remember, I actually went to the Soviet Union, believe it or not in 1967, which gives some sense of my age. But, and of course, when you went there, everyone would say, well, of course, no one believes

the stuff that's coming out of this. You know, privately, they tell you, but that's a, that's, that's horrible. if that is also the case for scholarship. But in fact, that's the case. People, as you point out, people, the public is, is, their confidence in science. And by the way, science and scientists were always the highest level of confidence in every poll that was ever done for the last 50 years. But their confidence in science is going away if they see scientists, you know, basically spouting nonsense and doing it with. And because then, then it's fake news. It's like, you know, you create your own reality. What's truth? If the scientists,

you know, don't have any idea what objective truth is, then is there any such ideas? And then we can create our own truths and my truth is as good as yours. And that's, that's a huge danger for society. Obviously, it's a danger for academia. But in a democratic society, which, or any society which should exist on where policy is based on empirical evidence and true and and falsifiable. It's a real problem. It is. And it's not just for the grants making political statements, of course, and I'm sure you know this well, if you're willing to make a little political statement and a little

white lie for that, well, then maybe you will find the right results for your paper that is is concordant with the view that gets funded on a variety of issues, right? And I think that happens a lot. And if you want a good career, then you find results that are popular and get funded. And you know, that's, and that's a huge change. You're not just for you, but for the integrity of science. And once it loses its integrity, then, you know, it's hard to know what. That's all science has.

of that and the fact that it makes the world work through technology. And I mean, that's why, yeah, one of the great aspect of science is it works. In fact, that's the greatest aspect of science. It works, but it stops working if it loses touch with reality. And your last statement surprised me. You said, despite these dour final sentiments of your own self-examination and worry and concern, you see, I do feel some optimism. but I was happy to see you say,

but things will probably have to get much worse before they get better, which is what I often tell people is what my wife tells me about things. So what's the source of your optimism? What's the source of my optimism? Well, maybe it's, you know, my own personal experience and bias here in that I've,

maybe because I've started to find people, I feel that maybe more people are aware of this problem now. not many years ago, two, three years ago even, there weren't many people. I mean, I hadn't found all these people. I think people were more isolated and getting fired. Now people started to find one another. We're speaking out. We're getting some courage.

Organizations are filing their feet like you with the Free Speech Union in Canada. I was very happy to see the first lawsuit yesterday. these are very reasons to be optimistic. And I think we have to be optimistic to some extent. Well, that's good. I've said this before. I'm always influenced by my late friend, Cormac McCarthy, who wrote very dark novels,

but was very chipper fellow. And I asked him how he could be that way. And he said, well, I'm a pessimist, but that's no reason to be gloomy. But nevertheless, I think I, you've convinced me. I'm in a sense I'm optimistic for a slightly different reason. I'm optimistic because we get people like you and 39 people to write about this publicly

to try and do something about it. And so I'm optimistic perhaps that maybe our writing from inside and from all ends of the political spectrum of scientists pointing out the issue might hopefully not just affect the public opinion and the public realizing there's a problem. that's already happening in some sense. And the reaction to it in the United States is terrifying. The government's reaction to the problem is now almost, the solution is almost worse than the problem in the United States.

But more importantly, that it will emboldened your colleagues and others to realize, hey, maybe there's a problem. And it's only by speaking out and only by recognizing it that things will change. And if the culture needs to change, it has to change from within. And so I'm optimistic because people are speaking out, and I'm thankful that people like you have been, and I'm thankful that you wrote this, and I'm thankful that you came here to talk about it

and had the courage to do that. So thank you very much. Well, thank you very much for having me, and it's a real pleasure to interact with you and to contribute to this book. I hope it makes a difference. We'll see. We'll see. You never know.

You don't try. You never know. But thanks again. Right. Thank you. Hi, it's Lawrence again. As the Origins podcast continues to reach millions of people around the world, I just wanted to say thank you.

It's because of your support, whether you listen or watch, that we're able to help enrich the perspective of listeners by providing access to the people and ideas that are changing our understanding of ourselves and our world and driving the future of our society in the 21st century. If you enjoyed today's conversation, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. You can also leave us private feedback on our website if you'd like to see any parts of the podcast improved. Finally, if you'd like to access ad-free and bonus content, become a paid subscriber at originsproject.org.

This podcast is produced by the Origins Project Foundation as a non-profit effort committed to enhancing public literacy and engagement with the world. by connecting science and culture. You can learn more about our events, our travel excursions, and ways to get involved at originsproject.org. Thank you.