This book reveals how embedded beliefs more so than a lack of scientific knowledge and understanding are creating a cognitive bias toward information that coincides with personal beliefs rather than scientific consensus-and that this anti-science bias exists among liberals as well as conservatives.

In 2010, an outbreak of whooping cough in California infected more than 8,000 people, resulting in the hospitalization of more than 800 people and the death of 10 infants. In 2015, an outbreak of the measles in Disneyland infected more than 125 people. Both the whooping cough and the measles are vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) that have been largely nonexistent in the United States for decades. As these cases demonstrate, individuals who prioritize ideology or personal beliefs above scientific consensus can impinge on society at large-and they illustrate how rejecting science has unfortunate results for public health and for the environment.

When Ideology Trumps Science examines how proponents of scientific findings and the scientists responsible for conducting and communicating the applicable research to decision makers are encountering direct challenges to scientific consensus. Using examples from high-stakes policy debates centered on hot-button controversies such as climate change, GMO foods, immunization, stem cell research, abstinence-only education, and birth control, authors Wolters and Steel document how the contested nature of contemporary perspectives on science leads to the possibility that policymakers will not take science into account when making decisions that affect the general population. In addition, the book identifies ways in which liberals and conservatives have both contested issues of science when consensus diverges from their ideological positions and values. It is a compelling must-read for public policy students and practitioners.

Provides readers with a clear understanding of how ideology and personal values supersede scientific consensus for people across the political spectrum

Identifies key indicators of support for or opposition to current science-policy conflicts

Explains how disagreement on issues such as climate change and vaccination results in inaction on these policy issues and negatively affects human and environmental health at the local, regional, national, and global levels

Offers insights that may serve to break through the barriers of policy inaction caused by disagreement with scientific consensus