Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate Political and psychological antecedents to science denialism Kathryn Quissell, PhD, MPH, MSc Catherine Strawley, MPH Maslyn Pessner Key words: Denialism, evidence, policy, governance Introduction Science denialism is a social and political force with significant implications for the world’s ability to govern some of the most pressing global problems. Denialism has contributed to massive failures in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, hundreds of thousands of lives lost to HIV/AIDS, and barriers to domestic climate change mitigation policies and the negotiation of global treaties and agreements. Political forces clearly shape the willingness of individuals to consider, use, or reject scientific data. Using the U.S. as an example, we see many concerning population trends which erode or lessen compliance with evidence-based policymaking. Distrust of expertise and of government are at an all-time high (Gauchet 2012; Motta 2017). Anti-intellectualism, generally defined as “a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent it” has become more pronounced due to the rise of right-wing populism, the political dominance of libertarian ideology, and the cultural valoriZation of the self-made man (Hofstadter 1963), all conditions exacerbated under the Trump administration. Clearer ideological sorting into political parties, reified political identities, intensifying ingroup vs. outgroup dynamics between parties, and structural incentives favoring political wins over governing are increasingly polarizing politicians and the American electorate (Klein 2020). These dynamics are coinciding with the most significant pandemic in over one hundred years and have contributed to the rejection of public health evidence and the disastrous U.S. policy response to COVID- 19. Additionally, these forces have led to persistent failures in addressing global climate change, another crucial science-backed policy issue with significant human consequences. We know much about the political challenges in the U.S. However, the literatures on these political dynamics of concern, and work in social psychology on science denialism, conspiracy beliefs, and how and why people engage differently with evidence, still require synthesis and clarification. The first step in this project is to synthesize different explanations for the misuse of evidence, denialism, and conspiracy theories. This paper uses the qualitative methods of literature synthesis, process tracing, and within and between case comparisons to examine the micro and macro-level factors driving denialism 1 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate around HIV/AIDS, COVID-19, and climate change. We first present individual case studies on these policy areas and then conclude with a synthesis of key drivers and gaps in understanding. Cases Studies AIDS Denialism Background on HIV/AIDS Denialism Pandemics have always fostered denialism and conspiracy theories (Uscinski and Parent 2014). As an emerging, novel, infectious disease, it should not have been surprising the HIV/AIDS crisis lent itself to alternative explanations. However, the strength of these beliefs among leaders in South Africa, the country with the largest number of people living with HIV/AIDS, was bewildering. Several individuals in South Africa introduced President Thabo Mbeki and Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang to denialist ideas, and these ideas resonated – to such an extent that President Mbeki invited several of the key figures in the denialist network to join his Presidential Panel on HIV/AIDS. These ideas persisted in shaping health policy in the country until President Mbeki resigned, and as of 2012, there were still South Africans expressing support for denialist beliefs. What was it about AIDS denialism, and the network peddling denialist claims, that led high-level government officials to bypass the scientific consensus on HIV/AIDS while hundreds of thousands of South Africans contracted HIV and died of AIDS? Additionally, as AIDS denialism is broader than just South Africa, what political macro-level factors and individual micro-level factors contribute to AIDS denialist beliefs? Examining the origin and development of HIV/AIDS denialism, characteristics of the denialist network help to explain their influence, such as leaders with scientific credentials and supportive journalists who all presented these ideas as legitimate. Additionally, there are several key narratives undergirding the denialist movement, and the resonance of each theory varies by place and by person, creating diverse entry-ways into denialism. This noticeable trend points to the importance of the narratives, and to how characteristics of individuals and the broader political environment shape which narratives are believed. While all the main AIDS denialist theories have been demonstrated as scientifically false over time, and they all appear ludicrous to HIV/AIDS scientists and clinicians, each contains a small kernel of plausibility exploited by denialist leaders. To understand how denialism began and spread, it is important to examine denialist narratives for what norms and ideas they contain, how they resonate with particular people, and how these key actors and other political factors facilitated their diffusion. 2 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate The research of Nicoli Nattrass and Seth Kalichman captures much of the information available on AIDS denialism. Their work describes the key actors, narratives, and health impacts. As they identified, underlying AIDS denialism are several alternative claims. The primary denialist narrative is the argument that a virus, identified and named HIV, does not cause AIDS. This argument takes advantage of early uncertainties in AIDS research and continues to promote and exploit them even after significant scientific evidence demonstrating the causal link between HIV infection, immune system damage, and the development of AIDS (Kalichman 2009). Additionally, the other component of this narrative which makes it believable, or appealing, are the other explanations offered for the cause of AIDS. Many denialist leaders link AIDS to broader factors such as poverty, malnutrition, environmental toxicity, and other systemic influences which are detrimental to immune systems (Nattrass 2012). Social determinants do have an impact on vulnerability to HIV infection as well as life expectancy and overall health for people living with HIV/AIDS, but they are not necessary or sufficient causes of AIDS. An additional argument under this narrative is that antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) themselves are toxic and cause AIDS. Many followers of denialism accept both pieces of this narrative, but some favor one of the causal stories. The second denialist claim is the conspiracy theory that AIDS is man-made. The culprit in this narrative varies, but one of the dominant stories is that AIDS was created in a U.S. lab as a bioweapon or means of genocidal warfare specifically targeting Africans and/or Black Americans (Nattrass 2012). Interestingly, this narrative has been traced back to a deliberate East German and Soviet Union misinformation campaign which originated and spread this claim (Nattrass 2012, pg. 27). This conspiracy theory contains several underlying myths. The first myth is that HIV/AIDS did not originate naturally as a zoonotic infection in Africa. Instead, scientists supposedly developed it in a lab. The second related myth is that this disease was then purposefully introduced into vulnerable populations targeted for racist and genocidal purposes. Stories surrounding how it was introduced vary, but the dominant one in Africa is through contaminated vaccines, such as polio-eradication programs (Kalichman 2009). These alternative claims were either created or supported by individual scientists with legitimate scientific credentials (although none did HIV/AIDS research), proliferated through supportive journalists and media outlets, promoted by some politicians and other famous people, and fostered through online denialist communities. Several leading denialists were scientists at reputable institutions. One of the central figures, Peter Duesberg, was a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and he was a well-respected cancer researcher recogniZed for his work in studying the genetic basis of cancer and cancer-related retroviruses. For this work, he was inducted into the prestigious National 3 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate Academy of Sciences before he began questioning HIV/AIDS knowledge (Kalichman 2009). While he was a central spokesperson for denialism, he never did HIV/AIDS research. Duesberg was one of the key denialists on Mbeki’s Presidential Panel. Other denialists, such as the “Perth Group” in Australia, were physicians, pathologists, and biophysicists – all with medical and scientific training but none of whom worked specifically in HIV/AIDS or emerging infectious diseases (Kalichman 2009). Finally, many other key denialists were members of the homeopathic/natural remedies community, who advocated for, and sold, alternative cures such as vitamins and supplements. Two of these individuals, Roberto Giraldo and David Rasnick were also on Mbeki’s Presidential Panel, while others such as German physician Matthias Rath carried out illegal clinical trials of herbal remedies and sold vitamins throughout South Africa (Kalichman 2009). Additionally, denialist