Cabinet Nominations Signal a Sharp Turn Away from Data-Driven Policymaking
By Melanie Wilt, APR, CEO of Shift•ology Communication and Clark County Commission President
President-elect Trump’s recent Cabinet nominees reflect an increasing trend of emotional and social factors overshadowing governmental decision-making. Several appointees are household names with celebrity status but minimal practical experience in the areas they will lead. What they lack in expertise, they compensate for with impassioned distrust of traditional institutions.
Take Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. A vocal anti-vaxxer and environmental activist, Kennedy has promoted discredited theories about vaccines causing harm, particularly autism. His stance has alienated him from mainstream medical and scientific communities, positioning him against public health institutions like the CDC and NIH. He pitted himself against farmers when he founded the Waterkeepers Alliance in 1999 and has railed against their science-based practices.
Similarly, Dr. Mehmet Oz, a television personality nominated to oversee Medicare and Medicaid Services, has a history of promoting fad diets and dismissing evidence-based medicine. In a scathing letter, a group of 10 prominent doctors accused him of “manifesting an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments” for personal financial gain.
The Danger of Abandoning Science-Based Policymaking
Without science-based policymaking, our country would become a regulatory free-for-all. America’s rise to global leadership stems from three critical factors:
- Checks-and-balances government through a three-branch system
- Legislative processes that incorporate expert input
- Regulations based on scientific evidence rather than popular opinion
Regulatory agencies like the FDA, EPA and USDA depend on scientific processes to ensure public health and safety. Without these evidence-based approaches, we would be subject to knee-jerk reactions and the opinions of a few powerful individuals.
Communication Challenges in the Era of Misinformation
Traditional science communication approaches are no longer sufficient.
Communicators must recognize that emotional and political considerations often shape final policy outcomes. Dr. Vincent Cavello of the Center for Risk Communication notes that under stress, people focus more on negative information and process it below their educational level.
The communication principle of 1N=3P becomes critical: for every one negative message, it takes three positive messages to level the playing field. This means reactive communication is significantly more challenging than proactive messaging.
A Call to Action for Defenders of Science
Science advocates must evolve their communication strategies:
- Proactively distribute credible information
- Make scientific data more accessible and understandable
- Apply communication science with the same rigor as scientific research
- Create bold, neuroscience-informed messages that cut through misinformation
The goal is not just to present facts, but to create meaningful narratives that resonate with emotional policymakers and the public.
The fundamental principles remain clear:
- Vaccines save lives
- GMOs are safe
- Science is repeatable and provable
- Effective communication can shape understanding and prevent misinformation
While the administrative appointees may challenge existing systems, the three-branch government structure provides some protection, provided other individuals maintain strict best practices in lawmaking and constitutional review.
The recent trend of appointing nominees who distrust traditional scientific institutions poses a significant threat to the systems that have created the world’s safest food supply and highest quality of life. Science communicators must rise to the challenge, transforming how we share critical information in an era of emotional decision-making.
As my mother would say, “it’s time to stop pussyfooting around!”
Our responsibility is to deliver bold, accessible, valid scientific information that can ultimately save lives, end famine and prevent misinformation from shaping our collective future.