Podcast Summary: Science In Action — How science got here, and where next

BBC World Service | October 30, 2025
Host: Roland Pease
Guests: Dr. Michael Mann (Climate Scientist), Dr. Angie Rasmussen (Virologist), Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Historian of Science), Dr. Deb Hoorie (Former CDC Leader)

Main Theme

This final episode of Science In Action reflects on the current crisis of trust in science, tracing how we arrived at an era where scientific authority is under siege and exploring ways to rebuild confidence amid politicization, disinformation, and global challenges. Host Roland Pease leads a high-profile panel through a discussion spanning climate change denial, public health misinformation, media responsibility, and the broader socio-political factors undermining science in public life and policy.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Arc of Science Reporting: From Hope to Hostility (01:08–03:50)

• Roland Pease recounts the show's early days, covering breakthroughs such as DNA, nuclear power, and the Human Genome Project, but notes the parallel rise of crises: global warming, deforestation, politicized science, and the erosion of trust—especially pronounced since the pandemic.
• Science has become defensive, Pease observes, with health and environmental agencies beset by skepticism and conspiracy.

2. The Common Playbook: Attacks on Science and Scientists (04:12–06:04)

• Michael Mann recalls becoming a target after publishing the "hockey stick" graph (1998), which clearly showed rapid human-driven warming.
  • He draws a direct link between attacks on climate scientists and public health officials during the pandemic: “These are two very same issues ... and there really is a commonality ... powerful vested interests have used ... power and wealth ... to undermine public faith in the science itself, with disastrous and deadly implications.” (05:37)
• Powerful interest groups (fossil fuels, petro states, wealthy "plutocrats") weaponized denial to protect their industries, now employing similar tactics against public health.

3. Disinformation’s Machinery: Who Benefits? (06:04–10:09)

• Angie Rasmussen explains:
  • Misinformers often profit from pushing anti-vaccine rhetoric by selling dubious alternatives: “Don’t get the measles vaccine; take cod liver oil. Don’t take the COVID vaccine; take ivermectin. Use our services ...” (06:22)
  • The anti-science playbook manipulates emotions, bombards with lies dressed as reasonable skepticism, and exploits information gaps.
• Michael Mann cites the early-pandemic decrease in fossil fuel consumption as a catalyst for climate interests to fund anti-lockdown and anti-public health campaigns, including promoting the "Great Barrington Declaration"—a sign of fossil fuel-backed interference in public health policy (09:07–10:12).

4. The Underlying Agenda: Distrust in Government (10:43–13:02)

• Naomi Oreskes zooms out: Not just snake oil salesmen or individual products, but a systemic campaign to erode faith in government. “The key word there is public. This is really all about the role of government ... restraining people who do things that hurt us and protecting us from harmful things.” (11:20)
• This campaign, driven by pro-market, anti-regulatory forces, links attacks on various forms of science by framing government involvement as overreach or oppression.

5. Science Under Assault: Public Health’s Perspective (13:14–16:10)

• Deb Hoorie shares firsthand experience as a CDC leader:
  • Even pre-pandemic, public health guidance (e.g., opioid and firearms policy) faced dissent from those with conflicts of interest.
  • Under the new political climate, some leaders elevate anecdotes and retracted studies to “gold standard” status, muddying scientific consensus and “calling into question the higher levels of evidence” (14:13).
  • Result: Resurgence in vaccine-preventable diseases and deaths—“unbelievable that we are at this point today.” (15:54)
• Michael Mann: “Science denial is literally deadly. That's the message here.” (16:10)

6. Media's Role and Challenges of Scientific Communication (16:14–20:47)

• Angie Rasmussen contends the crisis isn't a "failure to communicate," but deliberate “organized propaganda.” The truth is outgunned by “more compelling lies ... extremely well funded.” (17:55)
• Deb Hoorie and Michael Mann criticize media “performative neutrality”—major outlets like The New York Times and Washington Post give undue weight to unsupported theories (e.g., the COVID lab leak) to present “balance,” sowing confusion: “They're platforming anti-science out of a sense of performative neutrality ...” (19:48)
• Naomi Oreskes notes for every dollar spent on genuine climate science advocacy, $10 are spent pushing disinformation (22:58).

7. The Global Spread and Societal Impact (27:11–31:00)

• Roland Pease prompts: Is this an American issue, or a global trend?
• Panel consensus: It's a growing global challenge, with well-funded networks (e.g., the Atlas Network, Heritage Foundation, and Russian disinformation) exporting anti-science, anti-government rhetoric abroad (27:28–29:29).
• Angie Rasmussen describes how tactics used in the US now fuel anti-public health campaigns in Canada (e.g., the Ottawa trucker convoy, opposition to avian flu measures), and warns similar dynamics threaten Europe and beyond.

8. The Essential Role of Expertise in Democracy (31:28–32:36)

• Angie Rasmussen reflects: The pandemic forced scientists out of their silos and into broader public engagement, warning about historic and ongoing dangers when “expertise” is subjugated to politics.
  • “We need to do things based on evidence, with multiple types of expertise ... as soon as we get expertise out of science ... [it is] a huge problem.” (31:39)
• Science and evidence, she asserts, are “essential to democracy.”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Michael Mann (on scientific attacks):

  “Powerful vested interests who find the science inconvenient ... have used ... power and wealth and influence ... to undermine public faith in the science itself with disastrous and deadly implications.” (05:37)

• Angie Rasmussen (on anti-vax misinformation):

  “Every accusation is actually a confession, in my experience.” (08:52)

• Naomi Oreskes (on larger agenda):

  “It’s not just the snake oil salesman ... there's a bigger argument: the key word is public ... a large scale, long-term campaign to undermine public trust in government.” (11:11–12:22)

• Deb Hoorie (on evidence misuse):

  “It was very difficult to talk about data and science protecting people when you have these personal anecdotes not based on science and potentially based on conflicts of interest.” (14:58)

• Angie Rasmussen (on science communication):

  “It’s not a failure to communicate ... It’s the fact that people are telling more compelling lies than we can tell the truth.” (18:12)

• Michael Mann (on media’s responsibility):

  “The legacy media should not be platforming anti-science as they are.” (24:58)

• Naomi Oreskes (on disinformation resources):

  “For every dollar spent by an environmental group ... $10 was being spent by the fossil fuel industry and its allies to deny the science.” (22:58)

• Angie Rasmussen (on the global battle):

  “These exact same things happened in the US and that's how we ended up where we are now ... I think this is very much a global problem. It's not going anywhere.” (29:29)

Important Segment Timestamps

• 01:08 Episode’s historical context and science’s changing public perception
• 04:12–05:55 Michael Mann details direct attacks connected to climate and public health
• 06:17–09:06 Angie Rasmussen on disinformation incentives and tactics
• 09:07–10:12 Mann links fossil fuel interests to early-pandemic anti-public health campaigns
• 10:43–13:14 Naomi Oreskes explains systemic distrust campaigns targeting government-backed science
• 13:28–16:10 Deb Hoorie’s first-hand CDC experience of manipulated evidence & consequences
• 16:55–19:47 Angie Rasmussen and panel on media, narrative, and organized propaganda
• 22:38–24:53 Oreskes reflects on communication, lab leak theory, and lessons learned
• 27:11–31:00 Globalization of anti-science and panel's international observations
• 31:28–32:36 Angie Rasmussen on safeguarding expertise within democracy

Final Reflections

The panel agrees that, despite persistent attacks, science remains fundamentally trustworthy in much of the world, but faces unprecedented, coordinated threats in the information age—often led by anti-regulatory interests and amplified by powerful media and social channels.

Science’s defense, the guests emphasize, must be collective, interdisciplinary, globally vigilant, and uncompromising in evidence and transparency—but must also adapt to the modern world’s storytelling battles and globalized disinformation flows.

Final Words:
“We need to do things based on evidence, with multiple types of expertise ... as soon as we get expertise out of science, this is something that historically has been a huge problem. ... It is essential to democracy.”
— Angie Rasmussen (31:39–32:34)

Host Roland Pease signs off, closing an era of international science journalism.