How science got here, and where next

Science In Action examines the current crisis of anti-science sentiment and its threat to evidence-based policy. Hosted by Roland Pease, the episode brings together four prominent voices: climate scientist Michael Mann, historian of science Naomi Oreskes, epidemiologist Angie Rasmussen, and Deb Houry (likely from the CDC). The framing suggests the episode explores both the sources of anti-science movements and the underlying motivations driving them—implying a deeper analysis beyond surface-level dismissal of science denial. The 32-minute format suggests a focused discussion rather than exhaustive coverage. The episode title 'How science got here, and where next' indicates a dual structure: examining how science arrived at this precarious moment in public trust, and what the future might hold. Given the guest roster spanning climate, history of science, infectious disease, and public health, the conversation likely touches on how scientific consensus has been undermined across multiple domains, the role of institutional and political factors, and perhaps paths forward for restoring evidence-based decision-making. The show notes hint at examining 'sources and motivations' rather than just symptoms, suggesting the episode attempts some analytical depth about why anti-science sentiment has gained traction rather than simply lamenting it.

Verdict: A timely, well-credentialed discussion of science's credibility crisis that likely offers useful perspective, but the show notes reveal little about specific insights or how engaging the execution is.

Science rubric

• Scientific accuracy n/a

  Source material provides no specific claims to evaluate; guest credentials suggest competence but content details unavailable

• Clarity for non-experts n/a

  No information about how complex topics are explained or whether jargon is defined

• Sense of discovery 3/5 25%

  The framing suggests examination of 'sources and motivations' beyond surface criticism, implying some analytical depth, but show notes don't detail novel findings

• Substance 3/5 25%

  Four substantive guests with relevant expertise and a dual-part structure (past and future) suggests solid content, but 32 minutes limits depth on such a broad topic

• Delivers on its title 3/5 25%

  Title promises both historical context ('how science got here') and forward-looking analysis ('where next'); show notes confirm both elements but don't clarify how thoroughly each is covered

• Value for time 3/5 25%

  32 minutes is reasonable for a roundtable discussion but potentially tight for meaningfully exploring anti-science sources, motivations, and solutions with four guests

How we score Science

Worth it if you're concerned about anti-science trends and want to hear from respected experts on what's driving the problem and what comes next.

Based on the episode description. AI-generated; it can be wrong.