On Nov. 10, 2021, a study by researchers at Georgia State University showed that the politicization of science in the U.S. limited the positive impacts that scientific advances offered when people rejected sound and beneficial scientific advice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The politicization of health-related issues occurs when political identities or cues become integrated into the public discourse surrounding any topic. This can involve news outlets emphasizing political controversy over an issue that then colors partisans’ evaluations of novel scientific information. The roots of politicization surrounding COVID-19 vaccines can be attributed, at least in part, to (1) statements and visual cues by leading politicians, (2) media coverage about the nature of the virus; and (3) partisan divisions in public discourse about vaccination.

Social media messages compounded politicization of the virus. Stories that circulated widely on social media included false claims (such as transmission of coronavirus through mosquito bites), conspiracy theories (the virus is spread by 5G towers) and pseudoscientific health therapies (eating garlic or drinking bleach can cure the disease).

President Donald Trump initially downplayed the threat posed by COVID-19 and compared it to the flu in public remarks. The President also labeled it a “new hoax” [and said that] “the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus—they’re politicizing it.” President Trump also promoted claims that the virus could be combatted by injecting or drinking disinfectant or bleach, and promoted hydroxychloroquine as a cure. He also appeared in public without a mask and criticized his rival for the presidency, Joe Biden, for wearing one: “Did you ever see a man that likes a mask as much as him?… If I were a psychiatrist, I’d say this guy has some big issues.”

Politicization thus was “baked into the context of the emergent coronavirus… From the earliest alarm, Republican politicians followed Trump’s lead in publicly downplaying the threat, while Democrats responded with more concern, exhibiting different public cues.” Further, portions of the American public were influenced by President Trump’s messages on Twitter suggesting that the virus was a hoax, was not serious, or that unproven therapies should be used.

Online social media has facilitated the spread of rumors, conspiracy theories and misinformation at a speed and intensity unprecedented in history. When combined with the politicization of science, the results can be disastrous for objective reasoning in individual and collective decision-making. What can science practitioners do to combat the deleterious impacts of politicization in the specific case of resistance to the COVID-19 vaccine? In addition to individual activities on the part of scientists themselves, there are several take-aways for life scientists and health professionals.

First, we need to recognize that science is politicized, but that such politicization has been the case throughout much of human history. From the conviction of Socrates (470–339 BC) for corrupting youth with his teachings, to Roger Bacon (1214–94) being imprisoned for finding logical inconsistencies in the Bible, to Galileo Galilei’s arrest for his refusal to accept the Church’s position on the nature of the solar system, scientists have struggled for independence and intellectual freedom. An account written in 2009 reports “threats from all sides of the political spectrum over the years” including restricting funding, dictating the curriculum in science classes, controlling the composition of scientific advisory committees, and reviewing or censoring scientific publications.” Although the speed and efficiency of transmission of science skepticism has changed with the democratization of information, the tendency to resist ideas and inventions that would be beneficial to the world has a long history. Understanding the context of skepticism about science should increase patience with short-term setbacks and also the need for persistence even under challenging situations.

Second, scientists need to be aware of how their communications affect people and tailor their communication styles to maximize effectiveness. Decades of research on effective communication of science suggests a few principles (1) effective communication leading to constructive action requires that the communicator has earned the trust of the audience, not through status or titles, but instead through mutual respect; (2) scientific information is more likely to be acted on if technical details are accompanied by content to which the audience relates, including storytelling; (3) information should be clear, consistent, understandable and actionable. Just as social media has been used in the COVID pandemic to communicate misinformation, so too can it be a tool used by the science community to correct that misinformation and to enhance trust in scientific and medical research findings.

Finally, there is a need for more collaborative cross-disciplinary work to promote rapid adoption of important scientific findings. The complexity of the COVID-19 pandemic and its politicization at local, national, and international scales points to the importance of multifaceted approaches to understanding its disease-related, pharmaceutical, economic, geographic, cognitive, and psychological components simultaneously. The improvement of COVID outcomes will only take place when global expertise gleaned from all relevant disciplines are marshaled. Life scientists and healthcare professionals will play a key role, but their work will be enhanced if they work in large-scale teams with social and psychological scientists as well as experts in policy and communication.