in the US, science has become a political act because science is inextricably linked to improving human welfare. frequently, the prescription to improve human

in the US, science has become a political act because science is inextricably linked to improving human welfare. frequently, the prescription to improve human welfare is for other humans to take certain actions, or to refrain from certain actions. and so, by performing its fundamental mission, science makes enemies by constantly proposing alternatives to the status quo. these alternatives are frequently unwelcome by certain types of people to say the least. speaking from experience, the anti-scientists aren't going to be convinced by anything a scientist says because science is alien, frightening, and, from their perspective, deeply tainted by corruption and abuse of authority to promote political agendas. for now, the right wing has the biggest and most deserved anti-science reputation. however, i can very easily imagine a future in which the left wing reacts in an identically ignorant way to some growing body of evidence. so, how can scientists restate their value to a society which ignores, rejects, condemns, or doesn't understand their message? as terrible as it sounds, making a real and easily understandable major breakthrough that positively impacts human life would sure help -- but of course, science doesn't work like that, and most of the low-hanging fruit has been exploited already. aside from that, i think one part of the answer is to keep a close oversight on science journalism such that it represents scientific progress with less hyperbole and with more context and more third-party/peer review input.