As usual, you are spot-on -- as is your advice to all dietitians: we need to get to work. Credible science and evidence need to drive policy, not one's personal ideology or claims that contradict sound science and/or are just false. As such, this is not a time to hold our tongues.
I appreciate your effort to highlight the concerns of each group. However, wouldn’t it also be helpful to contemplate how political activism (disguised as poor quality science) has been allowed to infiltrate and influence our profession in an unchecked manner? Would there be more scalpels advocating for quality science in policy if certain groups within our profession had been held to a high standard of quality scientific evidence? Has our profession been overtaken by political activism rather than holding up quality science advocacy as our primary objective? Can dietitians even discern the difference between political influence and quality science? Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think these are critical points to consider in seeking to understand how scalpels and hammers settled into separate camps. Our profession is not the only one to experience this divide which speaks to the degree of political influence and infiltration into other science-based professions. Perhaps confusion and division among science-based professionals was the goal all along….a profession divided in its identity and mission is less effective in every way.
This is honestly a respectful take, and frankly, I agree with you about political activism acting as a seemingly good-natured, but still very much a trojan horse. That sounds like it deserves it own piece entirely.
There are many examples of political ideology usurping evidence-based approaches that I had for drafts of this piece, but removed due to space or context constraints. The fact is, there are many examples today of people who suddenly lose their interest in quality science once the political activists get involved. My own (brief) personal take is that I view intense political partisanship with a lot of skepticism. It never seems to build anything, but rather robs people of interaction and opportunity with one another.
Agree—I feel similarly about intense political partisanship—no matter which party. Political parties are invested in building tribes of passionate voters rather than defending the integrity of science and science-based professions.
As usual, you are spot-on -- as is your advice to all dietitians: we need to get to work. Credible science and evidence need to drive policy, not one's personal ideology or claims that contradict sound science and/or are just false. As such, this is not a time to hold our tongues.
Great and thoughtful post. I'm a scalpel, for sure!
I appreciate your effort to highlight the concerns of each group. However, wouldn’t it also be helpful to contemplate how political activism (disguised as poor quality science) has been allowed to infiltrate and influence our profession in an unchecked manner? Would there be more scalpels advocating for quality science in policy if certain groups within our profession had been held to a high standard of quality scientific evidence? Has our profession been overtaken by political activism rather than holding up quality science advocacy as our primary objective? Can dietitians even discern the difference between political influence and quality science? Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think these are critical points to consider in seeking to understand how scalpels and hammers settled into separate camps. Our profession is not the only one to experience this divide which speaks to the degree of political influence and infiltration into other science-based professions. Perhaps confusion and division among science-based professionals was the goal all along….a profession divided in its identity and mission is less effective in every way.
This is honestly a respectful take, and frankly, I agree with you about political activism acting as a seemingly good-natured, but still very much a trojan horse. That sounds like it deserves it own piece entirely.
There are many examples of political ideology usurping evidence-based approaches that I had for drafts of this piece, but removed due to space or context constraints. The fact is, there are many examples today of people who suddenly lose their interest in quality science once the political activists get involved. My own (brief) personal take is that I view intense political partisanship with a lot of skepticism. It never seems to build anything, but rather robs people of interaction and opportunity with one another.
Another important perspective to consider.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/rfk-jr-the-ecumenical-denier-embraces-anti-science-from-the-right-and-the-left/
Agree—I feel similarly about intense political partisanship—no matter which party. Political parties are invested in building tribes of passionate voters rather than defending the integrity of science and science-based professions.