We need better science communicators

Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are not cutting it.

A few weeks ago Bill Nye the so-called “Science Guy” had a few choice words with respect to RFK Jr.’s nomination into Trump’s cabinet as secretary of Health and Human Services, stating that RFK Jr. has “lost his way” as reported by many media outlets such as Politico below:

Rather ironic choice of words to come from “The Science Guy” himself considering his stance over the past few years which have been proven to be unscientific- more on that later.

But in this case it seems that RFK Jr.’s claims regarding fluoride in drinking water, as well as his claims on vaccines, are what are causing Bill Nye some concern:

Nye touted the benefits of fluoride in cavity prevention, noting that he believes his dental health is better because the mineral is added to drinking water supply, in Washington, D.C., where he grew up. Kennedy has said he wants the mineral, which occurs naturally but may be added by state or local governments, out of drinking water.

Ironic words to string together from Politico itself- “belief” probably isn’t the best word to use when discussing science, not because of the religious context but because of how subjective a word “belief” is.

As in, why would one state that Bill Nye “believes” that fluoride is good rather than point to the evidence that would better suggest that fluoride is necessary in drinking water?

Now, I am not making that claim myself, but the point I am making is that one would hope that a scientist, and “The Science Guy” of all people, would be using science and evidence to make such an argument regarding the benefits of fluoride in drinking water, and yet all we seem to have gotten is an anecdotal claim from one person and using that as evidence. Has Bill Nye looked at the evidence regarding fluoride himself, or is it more likely that “The Science Guy” is just regurgitating whatever alleged consensus there is on the benefits of fluoride as stated by the CDC or NIH?

Bill Nye is one of the best examples of what is known as a “science communicator”, in that he is (i.e. was) pivotal in communicating the going ons in science to the wider public. Science communicators are- ideally- supposed to remove the unnecessary jargon from science and provide it in more accessible, laymen terms so that people outside of the scientific community can garner an understanding and awareness of the type of research and breakthroughs that are being made.

Unfortunately, it’s the endeavor to communicate science that results in many of the current issues that we are dealing with, as science communicators may weaponize science to craft narratives and mislead people into believing false assumptions regarding actual science. Rather than rely on actual science and provide objective responses, science communicators may instead- and generally do- default to whatever is the approved talking point at the given time.

This is made worse given that many science communicators rely on public trust. They rely on the fact that the people they are talking to trust what they are saying- trust in them is trust in science, after all. And this allows room for pseudoscience and misinformation to make their way into the public discourse.

Hence why so many so-called science communicators will claim that the COVID vaccines are safe and effective, or that climate change is one of the biggest existential threats in our lifetime, or that sex is not binary but rather a spectrum. By making such claims an unknowing public will trust that these claims are true, and thus repeat the same claims even if they are not based in any actual science.

It’s why the likes of Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson have become such contentious figures in recent years as they have become some of the worst offenders in science communication.

---

For any millennials out there such as myself Bill Nye was seen as a role model for science. He was someone who made science fun and exciting, and made that information extremely accessible for a lot of people who would otherwise have had no interest in science.

Unfortunately, as time has shown Bill Nye isn’t quite “The Science Guy” he was made out to be, and more so a charlatan wearing a white lab coat (but really who isn’t these days).

This is made obvious when we look at Bill Nye’s views on none other than sex/gender.

Consider this segment which was part of Bill Nye’s children’s show in which it states that sex is argued to be binary:

And contrast it with his more recent viewpoints, updated “for a modern” audience with “modern science” I suppose…¹:

Resulting in probably one of the most cringe songs out there. I was subject to this years back and so I’m forcing it on all of my readers as well:

So all of this begs the question- did the science change, or did the narrative around “the science” change?

The answer here is rather obvious- sex is, and always will be, binary. Sex inheritance is determined by sex chromosomes, and deviations from expectation are just that- deviations from the inherent binary nature of sex, and nothing more.

But because Bill Nye the “science communicator” claims that sex is a spectrum then it makes it so, even if it goes against everything we know about sex. Just read some of the comments from the second video above and it shows how much power and weight a Bill Nye’s statements have, again all based upon the trust afforded by his audience who may not even bother to question what the science is but will look to so-called arbiters of science to discern what is science or not.

Hence why Bill Nye can just extol the virtues of fluoridated drinking water and no one in the media so much bats an eye at his claims. What evidence is Bill Nye even looking at? It doesn’t matter, because he is argued to be an expert in science, and thus an expert science communicator, and therefore whatever he says is gold.

---

And more recently Neil deGrasse Tyson was caught up in more controversies when he went onto Bill Maher’s show, in which Maher argued that the Democrats lost the election due to their stances on gender/sex:

Much like Bill Nye Neil deGrasse Tyson has had a history of downplaying sex-based differences between males and females.

It’s no coincidence that two of the biggest science communicators of our time are also some of the biggest offenders in spouting pseudoscience. It’s a clear example of why we are in a science communication crisis.

Rather than having people who can remain objective we have people who are far more concerned with being liked and popular. We have people more concerned about looking like experts and being within the good graces of “the right side” instead of working to uphold scientific integrity.

And we have a public that is so adverse to doing their own research that they rely on people to tell them what to think, thus propping up people who will tell them whatever they want to hear rather than telling them what they should hear.

We are at a time where trust in science is at an all time low, and for a good reason. The same should be said about the people who keep telling us that we should trust in the science.

If we are to get better science we also need people who are better science communicators, and that means people who are driven by objectivity rather than narratives. We need people who are actually looking into the science and are willing to question things that don’t seem right rather than going along with whatever is culturally acceptable at the time. We need communicators who are not concerned about being liked and popular, but instead are concerned about the actual science no matter how unpopular the evidence may appear. We need communicators whose ego and arrogance don’t dictate the type of science that they communicate.

We need better science, and we need better science communicators, and that means going away with the likes of Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson for a better, objective, more authentic generation.

---

If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists such as myself to provide work outside of the mainstream narrative.

Also, please note that annual memberships are $30. And if you are considering ending your paid subscription please remember that Substack follows an auto-renew policy and therefore your unsubscribe must be prior to the next renewal date.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent

1. As an aside, I’ll admit that this heel turn from Bill Nye served as one of the first things to wake me up to the cultural craziness that was beginning to erupt. This along with Gamergate as well as the debate over free speech on college campuses is what led me to start questioning what was really going on in our society.