Nobel Laureate Peter Agre: Why Scientists Must succeed Where Politicians Fail
A Nobel laureate on why we should sometimes trust scientists, and not politicians, to fix the future
Peter Agre won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2003, but he’s not interested in playing God. Or even know-it-all. “When Nobel Prize winners start predicting what the stock market would do, or who’s going to win the World Series, they may be beyond their specialty,” he says. Yet in his new book, Can Scientists Succeed Where Politicians Fail?, Agre claims that scientists have succeeded in defusing international crises where politicians have failed. He uses the 2015 Iran nuclear accord as an example, arguing that it only happened because two MIT-trained physicists spoke the same scientific language and brought presents for each other’s grandchildren. Then Trump canceled it. Now, with RFK Jr. running American health policy and the CDC “decimated,” he fears for catastrophe. Peter Agre may not quite be God. But he’s about as close as we will get in our polarized and paranoid world.
* Science diplomacy works when politicians deadlock. The 2015 Iran nuclear accord succeeded because two MIT-trained physicists—Ernest Moniz and Ali Akbar Salehi—could speak the same technical language and find common ground where politicians like John Kerry and Javad Zarif had reached a standstill. They started by bringing presents for each other’s grandchildren.
* Trump’s cancellation of the Iran deal exemplifies political failure. After scientists brokered a successful nuclear agreement involving the P5+1 nations, Trump withdrew from it, believing the deal wasn’t “tough enough.” The result: “we’re back to round zero,” undermining years of scientific diplomacy.
* The bipartisan consensus on science has collapsed. During the Sputnik era, Republicans and Democrats united to fund NASA and transform American science education. Today, that unity is gone—COVID politicized science, Fauci became a lightning rod, and the traditional respect for scientific expertise has eroded across the political spectrum.
* RFK Jr.’s health policies reflect “a lack of fundamental understanding.” Agre warns that Kennedy’s anti-vaccine stance and the decimation of the CDC under his leadership are “dangerous” and “counterintuitive.” Measles, virtually absent from the Western Hemisphere, is now returning without leadership response. Catastrophe, Agre suggests, is not a question of if but when.
* Scientists must inform policy without becoming know-it-alls. Agre argues that scientists shouldn’t make all decisions but must make information accessible to those in power. The challenge: maintaining credibility and trust in an era when Americans are increasingly skeptical of expertise, and when standing up for science risks becoming unavoidably political.
Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe
Episode 2102: Peter S. Goodman on How the World Ran Out of Everything
Episode 2101: Bethanne Patrick's six new books to reach on the porch or beach this June
Episode 2100: Banning Lyon's remarkable memoir of trauma, healing and the outdoors
Episode 2099: John Ganz on how America cracked up in the early 1990s
Episode 2098: Guy Lawson gets us inside the biggest scandal in the history of college sports
Episode 2097: Keen On America featuring Francis S. Barry
Episode 2096: Sasha Vasilyuk uncovers Ukraine secretive history by digging into the Soviet past
Episode 2095: Keith Teare on why the AI game in Silicon Valley might already be all over
Episode 2094: Joseph O'Neill on football as the ugly game of neo-colonial exploitation
Episode 2093: J. Albert Mann offers a Young Person's Guide to the History of American Labor
Episode 2092: Shane Burley on why Anti Zionism isn't Antisemitism
Episode 2091: Lilie Chouliaraki on the Weaponization of Victimhood
Episode 2090: Meredith Broussard on the digital "revolution" of artificial unintelligence and inequality