False Equivalencies: The Danger of Treating All Information Equally

False equivalencies—presenting two sides of an argument as if they hold equal merit, even when one side is not grounded in facts—erode public discourse and trust. Whether in discussions about climate change, vaccine safety, or political violence, this action has damaging consequences for how the public engages with science, policy, and reality.

They’ve always been a pet peeve, but I was especially irritated when I read Malcolm Gladwell's interview with The New York Times about his new book, Revenge of the Tipping Point. At first, I was delighted when he said, “I don’t have any great hesitation about saying I was wrong. If you’re reading a book that is 25 years old, stuff should be wrong. If you don’t recognize that the world has changed in 25 years, there’s something wrong with you.”

I couldn’t agree more. The world constantly shifts, and we must adapt our thinking to new evidence and circumstances. Gladwell’s humility in admitting his mistakes is refreshing, particularly in today’s polarized climate, where admitting fault is often seen as a weakness. 

It’s what he said later that troubled me: “People increasingly want uncurated expertise. Now does that sometimes create problems? Yeah, a lot of people didn’t take the Covid vaccine that should have and died as a result. That’s really unfortunate. I am fully aware of what happens when you let a thousand flowers bloom. But I’m also aware that there is at times something beautiful about the fact that we are opening up access to people in a way we never did before.”

Unfortunate? It was tragic. It was political and medical malpractice. Millions died.

Yes, access to ideas is crucial, but without proper vetting or curation, it becomes dangerously easy for disinformation and propaganda to spread unchecked. The challenge is to balance the need for open dialogue with the responsibility to prevent the amplification of dangerous or unfounded claims.

The Politicization of Science

One of the most disheartening trends I’ve observed over the past few years is the politicization of science to the point of toxicity. A discipline rooted in creativity, curiosity, and fact-finding has become demonized; science is openly ridiculed, trivialized, and held in contempt. If not checked and reversed, this will have a growing impact on discovery, education, public health, and US competitiveness. 

The idea of “trusting the science” is under attack. Public confidence in science—particularly biomedical science—has declined significantly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey revealed that only 27% of Republicans/lean Republican and 43% of Democrats/lean Democrat citizens have a great deal of confidence that medical scientists will act in the public’s best interest. This erosion of trust is partly due to the failure to communicate the evolving nature of scientific knowledge.

Science, by its nature, is fallible and self-correcting. It evolves as new evidence emerges. This is its greatest strength, but to the public, it can often seem like inconsistency or unreliability. This was evident during the pandemic when evolving guidance on social distancing, mask-wearing, and vaccines was often met with confusion and skepticism. 

Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, has expressed regret that officials didn’t adequately convey that recommendations would evolve as new information emerged during the pandemic. This failure to communicate the provisional nature of scientific knowledge only deepened public distrust. For many, the changing advice felt like dishonesty rather than the natural course of scientific discovery. This misunderstanding about the nature of science created a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and misinformation.

And it will not get better. Not in the next four years, anyway. The public should be angry, even terrified, that objective science will be scrapped if Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the like-minded are confirmed by the US Senate and assume roles of enormous national and global consequence.

Social media platforms have given, should I say, a booster shot to the amplification of numerous scientific falsehoods. Elon Musk’s behavior on his X (formerly Twitter) is particularly troubling. According to a recent New York Times analysis, nearly a third of Musk’s posts in a five-day period were found to be false or misleading. X enables conspiracy theories and misinformation to spread unchecked. While Musk claims to support free speech, the reality is that false information spreads faster and reaches more people than the truth. Even when others attempt to correct the record, a debunked conspiracy post sits alongside a credible one, and for many people, it all looks the same.

Reclaiming the Narrative 

The public’s trust in science shouldn’t rest on believing in specific experts or static truths; rather, it should be grounded in understanding the scientific process itself. As Dr. Art Caplan, the head of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, explained, trust in science requires belief not only in the message but in the process that generates it. Caplan argued that scientists need to better explain their work with accessible language, relevant examples, and local engagement through schools, community organizations, and grassroots efforts. This is key to rebuilding public confidence.

I used to believe that presenting solid evidence would be enough to convince people of the facts. But I’ve come to understand that facts alone are not enough when false equivalencies dominate the conversation. The truth is that not all opinions deserve the same weight.

At the same time, we must hold those with power and influence accountable. Whether it’s Elon Musk spreading false information or Malcolm Gladwell embracing uncurated content, the truth matters. If we cannot differentiate between what is factual and what is false, we are in serious trouble.

So yes, I agree with Gladwell that more voices should be heard, but I cannot follow him down the path of always accepting unfiltered content as part of the solution. If anything, we need to take more care and responsibility in communicating the facts. Because right now, the stakes are too high to get this wrong.

The Failure of Joy: The 2024 Election and the Power of Fear

Democrats should spend less time blaming each other for their loss and more time on why Republicans won.

In the wake of the 2024 election, political analysts, journalists, voters, and interested observers worldwide are grappling with how Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party lost despite running a campaign imbued with joy and optimism. As The New York Times reported, “The nationwide repudiation of the party stunned many Democrats who had expressed a ‘nauseous’ confidence about their chances in the race's final weeks. As they sifted through the wreckage of their defeats, they found no easy answers as to why voters so decisively rejected their candidates.”

Not true. The circular firing squad assembled quickly, and the headlines screamed their verdict: “This Is All Biden’s Fault,” “Dems rage against Biden’s ‘arrogance’ after Harris loss,” and “Democratic strategist says her party has lost ‘common sense’ and the ability to speak to ‘normal people’.”

Sure, there are plenty of ways to blame the Democrats for their massive defeat. The party needs to learn a few crucial lessons. But people must remember how Rupert Murdoch/Fox, Elon Musk/X, and others amplified the flood of lies and distortions, which found no counterweight in the mainstream or legacy media. The muddle contributed to tens of millions of people choosing not to vote, abdicating their privilege and responsibility. 

And there’s one more critical factor: Joy alone cannot stand against the power of fear, which Republicans wielded effectively to secure victory.

The Limits of Optimism

Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, chose “joy” to set their campaign's tone and emphasized hope, unity, and progress. The Vice President highlighted a woman’s right to choose, economic growth under Democratic leadership, and floated new incentives for home ownership and business development. Walz’s persona—the Coach—complemented this strategy, projecting confidence and unwavering belief in a brighter future. 

In a New York Times opinion piece written during the campaign, Charles M. Blow noted, “‘Joy’ Is Working for Harris, but Can It Close the Deal?’” We know the answer. Another NYT piece pointed out that this hopeful approach often fell on deaf ears among undecided and swing voters. One voter said, “I’m not looking for a leader who just tells me everything will be okay. I need to know they understand what I’m worried about.” Another added, “Optimism is nice, but it doesn’t pay the bills or make me feel safer.”

I am a believer, a supporter of joy, and an optimist. However, for months, I have said that the Harris strategy needed to change. The campaign spent significant time talking about unifying the country and the many misdeeds of the 45th President when they should have focused on issues that matter most to middle-class, middle America and efforts to get out the vote. 

In our hyperpolarized world, too few will accept facts, listen to arguments, or ask probing questions. And history shows that two other “happy warriors” failed to win the presidency: Al Smith (1928, losing to Herbert Hoover) and Hubert Humphrey (1968, losing to Richard Nixon). 

The Politics of Fear

History and legend show that fear motivates more effectively than joy or optimism. In the book “Camelot, Inc.,” I discuss how those plotting against King Arthur recognized that emotion—particularly anger—is the most potent unifier. It was understood that to gain traction, people needed an emotional rallying point: “It has to be something broad and popular, which everybody could feel…so that everybody can be angry” (T.H. White, The Once and Future King). Modern-day Republican strategists have mastered this lesson, using the emotional glue of fear to build their base.

Consider how policy debates are framed not as opportunities for growth but as existential threats. During the Obama era’s debates over the Affordable Care Act, opponents shifted the conversation from increasing access to healthcare to an infringement on personal liberty – “taking away” Americans’ choice. Similarly, efforts to regulate firearms meet fierce rhetoric about assaults on constitutional rights, evoking a protective response that overrides fact-based discussions.

The 2024 election highlighted this dynamic. While Democrats emphasized what they could add to the richness of Americans’ lives—greater equality, better access to services, social progress—Republicans positioned their platform as a defense against perceived losses: the erosion of freedoms, security, and identity.

While the abortion issue resonated with many voters, it did not offset the Republican platform of fear. The Republican campaign amplified worries of economic instability, rising crime rates, and the erosion of traditional values, painting a picture of an America under siege. Their messaging resonated powerfully with the public, who sought certainty and protection. Slogans like “Take Our Country Back” and “Never Surrender” reinforced the narrative that the nation needed saving from immediate threats.

The Role of the Media: Sanewashing and Shaping Perception

The news media significantly influenced the 2024 election. While Democrats struggled to energize voters with optimistic messages, mainstream media often sanitized or “sanewashed” Donald Trump and the Republican agenda. The coverage overlooked inflammatory or incoherent statements and emphasized a more favorable narrative. 

This approach significantly affected public perception. While Democrats focused on facts and future-oriented policies, media coverage that downplayed the divisive aspects of GOP rhetoric allowed fear-based messaging to become normalized. This created a political environment where emotional, fear-driven narratives easily overshadowed messages of hope and unity.

On a critical policy issue, a New York Times headline announced that “Public Health Could Be Recast in Second Trump Term.” Recast? Slashing CDC funding, breaking up the NIH, and ending vaccine mandates would demolish public health. Undermining institutions, politicizing science, demonizing scientists, and shattering trust in vaccines will lead to a less informed, less healthy America.

The Need for a New Democratic Strategy

The Harris-Walz campaign fell into a common trap: assuming facts alone would inform and influence perceptions. Facts are crucial, but we see repeatedly that public perception, driven by emotion, often holds more sway. Climate change is real, vaccines don’t cause autism, and fluoride strengthens teeth and helps prevent cavities – widely known facts, yet millions choose to ignore them and sometimes fight against them.

If Democrats want to regain electoral ground, they must face an uncomfortable truth: joy alone is not enough. The GOP’s approach consistently demonstrates that fear, anger, and protectionist themes more effectively energize voters. Democrats should not abandon their values; instead, they should integrate emotional narratives into their strategies. To break the cycle of electoral disappointment, they must combine their vision of hope with the raw power of perceived threats.

Noble ideals must be matched with an emotional strategy that galvanizes as effectively as it inspires. Only then can Democrats hope to break the cycle and harness the energy needed for sustained political momentum.

Presidential Humor: 2024 Edition

Next to power without honor, the most dangerous thing in the world is power without humor. – Eric Sevareid

The only thing I found humorous about a recent NYT opinion piece called Trump Is Losing the Humor War was the title. OK, it’s more ironic than funny because the whole thing implied that Trump was winning the humor war at some point.

The author, Professor Leif Weatherby at NYU, wrote, “Over the past decade, there’s one truth that liberals have been loath to admit: Donald Trump is funny. …when you watch him at a rally, you can see he’s playing for laughs: jabbing at his opponents[…].”

Here’s the problem: playing for laughs does not always equate to being funny. Being funny is to amuse, to be comical. Hurling insults, making sarcastic comments, or mocking others are not humorous. They’re, well, insulting, sarcastic, and mocking; all of it is at the expense of others. Trump might be “playing for laughs,” but it is not through humor. 

Also problematic is the professor’s critique of the other side of the political spectrum. “The Democrats have been many things over the last few decades, but funny has rarely been one of them,” he said.

That right there is funny. In my 2011 book Camelot, Inc., I remarked that Democrats had humor pretty well sewn up. Look at the vast majority of stand-up comics and the long-standing successes of figures like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Republicans, on the other hand, are masters of fear and anger. 

I agree with Professor Weatherby’s statement that “There’s something interesting about humor: We don’t get to choose what’s funny.” In a 2016 article, I wrote, “Be careful with humor in serious times. What’s funny to you may not be funny to someone else. It comes down to knowing your audience and having some compassion.” Compassion, like humor, is not one of 45’s strong suits.

Dr. Weatherby spoke about acknowledging the “truth.” But the truth is subjective. My truth about what’s funny, artistic, or cool will be the same for some and different for others. Facts and data, however, are not. Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway blew many minds when she said White House press secretary Sean Spicer “gave alternative facts” about the inauguration crowd size during a 2017 interview on Meet the Press. Host Chuck Todd responded, “Alternative facts are not facts; they’re falsehoods.” 

Will jokes or the manifestations of humor – Harris’ belly laugh or Trump’s happy dance – change any votes? Probably few, if any. Humor is a component of who we are; it’s one pixel in a complex picture. But there’s no doubt it’s essential. Michael J. Fox said, “I think the scariest person in the world is the person with no sense of humor,” and Robert Frost noted, “If we couldn’t laugh, we would all go insane.”

The Power of Not Knowing

The importance of asking questions and being curious cannot be overstated. A Harvard Business Review article by Allison Wood Brooks and Leslie K. John said asking questions “spurs learning and the exchange of ideas, fuels innovation and performance improvement, and builds rapport and trust among team members. And it can mitigate business risk by uncovering unforeseen pitfalls and hazards.”

When we know, we should want to know more. But what about when the well is dry? What do we do when there’s no foundation to formulate a plan or express an opinion? In my experience, a lot of people will make it up. They’re too embarrassed or their ego is too big to say, “I don’t know.” Too many people are conditioned to show no weaknesses or, worse, they’re plain ol’ bullshitters. Unfortunately, the B.S. artists frequently get away with their shams because others are too embarrassed (or too fearful or too much of a sycophant) to challenge them.

I like to surround myself with people who are comfortable – contented, really – about saying they don’t know, they don’t have an answer. They have a genuine interest in gathering facts and ideas.

I was reminded how important this was by my friend David. It wasn’t, “Hey, Paul, you should think about writing an article about the importance of having a curious mind.” The inspiration came from a long conversation about family, people we like (or don’t), food, books, music, movies, and politics. We got to a certain spot in the discussion, and he said, “I don’t know enough to have an opinion about that. What do you know?” 

I still feel refreshed when I think of that. His openness and honesty were, well, an inspiration. He’s a very smart guy, and smart people – confident and curious people – ask questions, dig around for facts and data, and seek out knowledgeable individuals for their perspectives. 

Einstein didn’t come up that day, but it hit me later that he said, “The important thing is not to stop questioning… Never lose a holy curiosity.”

A questioning, fact-finding mindset goes beyond friendships, of course. It should be a societal imperative. It’s a mentality that can lift everyone up. And it’s an essential element in mentoring. Good mentors know this, even in legend. When the future King Arthur asked, “Would you mind if I asked you a question?” Merlin (the wizard who was also his teacher and advisor) answered, “It is what I am for.” 

We should all be for it.

The Abnormality of the New Normal

Over the past couple of decades, we've experienced events that created a so-called “new normal”: 9/11, the Great Recession, and COVID-19 are examples. While I understood the use of the term, I never liked it; it rubbed me the wrong way somehow. But after thinking about what the new normal represents to me, the repulsion became clear. It’s the alarming rise in the normalization of intolerance and cruelty across our society. Political violence deemed "patriotic," exploitative workplace environments, plummeting civility, and justifications for the use of deadly force are disturbing shifts in our collective values and ethics.

The Cultural Shift Towards Intolerance

The rise of hyper-individualism, prioritizing personal success and self-interest over collective well-being, plays a significant role in the growth of intolerance and cruelty. Media portrayal of aggression and power as virtues (or even goals) further normalizes these behaviors. Reality TV shows, for example, often glorify ruthless competition and backstabbing. The pervasive influence of social media amplifies these trends. Platforms that thrive on sensationalism and outrage can desensitize users to violence and spite. The echo chambers created by algorithms often reinforce extreme views, making empathy and compassion seem like weaknesses rather than strengths.

Political Violence Is Not Patriotic

The attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, starkly illustrates how influencers can rebrand acts of violence as expressions of patriotism. For many, these acts of sedition and insurrection were profound assaults on the democratic process. However, a significant chunk of the population views it as a patriotic act, a defense against perceived governmental overreach and a “rigged” election. As Donald Trump fired up the crowd at the Ellipse in Washington DC, he said, "We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." At a different event, he said, "We will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections."

This dichotomy reflects a broader societal trend that increasingly views violence and lawlessness as acceptable methods of political expression. The repercussions of this mentality are profound, undermining the rule of law and setting a dangerous precedent for future civil unrest.

Success Does Not Require Ruthlessness

In the corporate world, the relentless pursuit of success can come at the expense of employee well-being. Some CEOs and business leaders justify overworking their employees as essential to achieving corporate goals. For example, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, X (Twitter), and SpaceX, is known for promoting punishing workplace environments. In an email to Twitter staff, he said they “will need to be extremely hardcore" to succeed. "This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade." A Tesla employee said, “Many of us worked tirelessly for him for years and were tossed to the curb like a piece of litter without a second thought.” 

The culture of overwork pervades many industries, masking employee exploitation as dedication and commitment. The glorification of such practices overlooks the severe mental and physical toll on workers, contributing to burnout, stress, and a deteriorating work-life balance. The noted organizational psychologist Adam Grant said, "Screaming at employees doesn't make you a tough boss. It makes you an asshole. Great leaders are demanding, not demeaning. They set high expectations and create accountability without abuse. Yelling is unprofessional. Treating people with dignity is not optional – it's required."

While some can keep pushing boundaries, there are limits. It appears that some potential Tesla buyers are snubbing the brand because of Musk’s reputation and penchant for promoting extreme political views.

We Need Just Plain Normal

Addressing these disturbing trends requires a fundamental shift in valuing and practicing empathy, compassion, and justice. Education systems should emphasize emotional intelligence and conflict resolution skills from an early age. Corporations should care more about employee well-being, recognizing that healthy, motivated workers are the foundation of sustainable success. Political leaders and influencers need to advocate for non-violent methods of protest and change, upholding the principles of democracy and the rule of law. 

The news media must concentrate more on facts and less on opinions. The public needs to recognize false equivalencies and news organizations must abandon them – no more giving equal time to, say, climate deniers when 97% of climate scientists agree that the use of fossil fuels is warming the earth. Let's do more to highlight the virtues of kindness, cooperation, and ethical behavior. Let's celebrate stories of resilience, community support, and altruism. 

Our society's growing coarseness and cruelty demand urgent attention. Whether in parenting, politics, corporate environments, or self-defense laws, normalizing harsh and aggressive behaviors reflects a more profound erosion of empathy and moral values. Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest member." We can stop trying to win points by staging events meant to embarrass others or spitting out carefully word-smithed insults. I'm sick of the attention-seeking behavior of elected leaders. Let's foster a society that values compassion, justice, and mutual respect over spite and exploitation. 

Normal is kind, not cruel. It's inclusive, not exclusive. It's positive, not punitive.

1980: The Lesser-Known Inflection Point

There have been many inflection points in US history – events that significantly changed our future and behaviors – in the last hundred years. Throwing out some key dates affecting the trajectory of US history – 1929, 1941, 1945, 1954, 1955, 1957, 1963, 1964, 1968, 1969, 1973, 1974, 1981, 1991, 2001, 2008, 2020 – I'm betting most of you will understand their significance. (This is a small, subjective sample and my rationale is at the end.)

What about 1980?

My "This Day in History" email from the HISTORY Channel this past week reminded me of a lesson I covered when I taught Strategic Communication at NYU. In a discussion about crisis management, I said public relations tactics could only help rescue a reputation if systemic problems were addressed. I used the catastrophic explosion on BP's Deep Water Horizon oil drilling platform as an example. (The same situation when then CEO Tony Hayward famously, selfishly said, "I want my life back.") After discussing how PR Band-Aids wouldn't fix the underpinning safety issues, we pivoted to a related topic – how the media covered the story and how people consumed the news. I projected a multiple-choice question on the classroom screen:

After Deep Water Horizon in 2010, what was the biggest ocean oil spill in history?

A) Ixtoc 1 oil well, Gulf of Mexico, Mexico

B) Atlantic Empress – Aegean Captain collision, Trinidad and Tobago

C) Exxon Valdez grounding, Prince William Sound, Alaska

This was repeated in at least a dozen classes and every one of the graduate students chose the Exxon Valdez. The answer, ladies and gentlemen, is A) the Ixtoc 1 disaster in 1979. 1979 also saw the collision of the two oil tankers. The Exxon Valdez, occurring in 1989, didn't even make it into the global top 10.

Why the outsized memory of the Exxon Valdez? One could speculate on the recency effect but I'm going with CNN. CNN was born in 1980 and without its real-time, continuous, global coverage, the world missed a lot of news. 

Impact on Public Perception and Behavior 

Exxon (now ExxonMobil) stayed in the news because we were wired in – the impact on the Alaskan ecology, the investigation into the company and the ship's crew members, the months of tracking the clean-up progress, the lawsuits, the push for new regulations. It had an impact on legislators, policies, and public opinion. Several scholars called this and similar constructs “The CNN Effect.”

While the constant stream of news can shine a megawatt light on important issues, the effects on the public can vary. It can sharpen the focus for some and lead to positive interventions during natural or human-shaped disasters. But sensationalized headlines and the onslaught of breaking news alerts can create anxiety in others. How many have turned off the news because we wanted to limit the amount of negativity in our lives? As psychologist Mary McNaughton-Cassill noted, "The relentless exposure to distressing news can elevate stress levels and lead to a state of learned helplessness."

More Can Lead to Less

CNN, obviously, was on to something. Other dedicated cable outlets followed, with some focused on news while others honed in on sports, finance, cooking, the weather, etc. 

However, any network with a strong partisan bias can create echo chambers where some viewers are only exposed to information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. Matthew Levendusky, a political scientist, has argued that this kind of selective exposure can exacerbate partisan divisions, increase hostility toward opposing viewpoints, and undermine democratic discourse.

Projecting news through an ideological lens can also lead to increased disinformation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Fox News personalities frequently downplayed the severity of the virus and questioned the efficacy of vaccines and public health measures. Viewers were guided to mistrust the science and its messengers. This misinformation likely contributed to lower vaccination rates among its viewers and may have exacerbated the public health crisis. A research study found that regions with higher viewership of Fox News had lower compliance with public health guidelines, illustrating the real-world consequences of its editorial stance. 

This decline in trust is problematic for a functioning democracy, as a well-informed citizenry is essential for making informed decisions on policy and elections. Professor Jon D. Miller, now at the University of Michigan, warned us nearly 20 years ago that "people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to participate in the democratic process.”

Further Into the Unknown

Like so many inflection points, it's difficult to forecast where this arc of history will ultimately take us. CNN's arrival in 1980 – and the model it pioneered – has undeniably transformed news consumption and its impact on society. 

The world is broken in so many ways and the society that needs to repair it seems harsher and more divided. But I'm hopeful the state of journalism can one day return to the sentiment founder Ted Turner expressed at the network's launch. Call it woke or naïve, but he wished CNN would "bring together in brotherhood and kindness and friendship and in peace the people of this nation and this world."

------

1929, stock market crash

1941, invasion at Pearl Harbor

1945, end of WW II, liberation of Nazi death camps, first atomic bomb

1954, Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka

1955, polio vaccine

1957, Sputnik

1963, JFK assassinated

1964, all in on Viet Nam, Civil Rights Act

1968, RFK and MLK assassinated

1969, men land on the moon

1973, Roe versus Wade

1974, Watergate, Nixon resigns

1981, CDC publishes first report on AIDS

1991, Gulf War

2001, 9/11 attacks

2008, Barak Obama, first Black president elected

2020, COVID-19

What Pfizer’s Super Bowl Ad Should Have Been

There’s been a lot of discussion around Pfizer’s decision to spend an estimated $14–21 million on its “Here’s to Science” Super Bowl ad. I’d like to boil it down to two questions: Why did they do it? Did it accomplish their objective?

For the question of ‘why,’ STAT News reported, “The ad comes as the pharmaceutical company celebrates its 175th anniversary and looks to promote a dynamic, optimistic message about Pfizer’s future to the general public, investors, and the company’s own employees.”

Pfizer spokesperson Faith Salamon said the goal was to “celebrate science in a fun, engaging and uplifting way.”

Unfortunately, The New York Times didn’t buy it. In their review of Super Bowl ads, the NYT placed Pfizer in the category entitled, “The Flagrant Missteps: Famous people and millions of dollars that together can’t quite amount to mediocrity.”

Flagrant sounds too intentional. This is a case of missed opportunity (except for the soundtrack — who doesn’t love Queen’s “Don’t Stop Me Now”?).

I had an array of reactions, but these were the key moments:

Most horrifying: A corpse comes alive, with his arm dissected from shoulder to fingertips — depicted in Rembrandt’s The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp — looking like he wants to get off the table.

Most confusing: The inclusion of a tartigrade (“little water bear,” an eight-legged creature about one millimeter long) swimming across the screen.

Most inspiring: The positive message sent by highlighting four women scientists, one of color.

Most overreaching: It seems the ad makers knew most of the public couldn’t differentiate between famous scientists or science disciplines, so they threw some recognizable names out there. The relevance was questionable since half of the science luminaries depicted were mathematicians and physicists, yet Pfizer is a healthcare company.

Most jarring: The words “Here’s to the next fight” come across the screen but don’t connect to anything seen previously. The next words are “LetsOutdoCancer.com” followed by some video of a little girl being applauded for what must have been successfully completing treatment. (A lovely moment, to be sure.)

The Let’s Outdo Cancer website details Pfizer’s research pipeline and product portfolio. There’s also important information on how to participate in a cancer clinical trial and a partnership with the American Cancer Society to “improve health outcomes in medically underrepresented communities across the United States.”

There is no doubt that we’re benefiting from the discoveries made by Pfizer and their partners. We’re living better, healthier lives. There’s a ton of good information on the site but it doesn’t have much to do with “Here’s to Science.”

A one-off effort like a Super Bowl ad can help achieve specific objectives but, in my experience, plans need follow-through and messages require repetition. I don’t know their actual plan, of course. I’m not an insider. But if Pfizer seeks to promote a positive message and increase engagement with stakeholders, I have a suggestion. They have an enormous opportunity to create a more receptive public if they work towards increasing trust in science.

Engaging a wide array of audiences on the value of science is critically important to elevate trust. Dr. Marijn Dekkers, former CEO of Bayer and former Chairman of Unilever, pointed out at a financial conference several years back that “even the most outstanding ideas and scientific breakthroughs have no chance if people do not accept, appreciate and support them. All too often, people are afraid of — or uneasy about — new ideas, inventions, processes or products.”

The public acceptance of innovation is clearly at risk according to the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, an annual trust and credibility survey. It found that respondents believe innovation is poorly managed by nearly a two-to-one margin. And while technology as a whole is trusted by 76 percent, gene-based medicine is only at 50 percent. (It gets worse. GMO foods are trusted only by 32 percent.)

The issue goes far beyond industry interests. Poor science literacy can eat at the core of our democracy. Professor Jon D. Miller, now at the University of Michigan, warned us nearly 20 years ago that “people’s inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.” He continued that for many issues affecting society, “if you don’t know a little science [it’s] hard to follow these debates. A lot of journalism [will] not make sense to you.”

So, here we are. The current state is that science and scientists are under attack. Facts are being denied and misinformation proliferates. Critical thinking is being abandoned. Education is underfunded. Science is politicized and weaponized. It must stop.

It’s not a problem that can be addressed by a one-year budget cycle or even a five or ten-year plan. It will take a generational blueprint that needs to be comprehensive, coordinated, and well capitalized to see a return on the investment.

Getting the message out is only one side of the coin, though. Ensuring the message is received requires the same sort of effort. The Super Bowl ad should have been the kick-off of an ongoing effort to engage, inform, and educate the public about science and scientific principles. But it’s not too late. We need conveners. Partners need to be assembled and resources gathered. Objectives must be determined and milestones assigned.

Let’s get started.

Between posts I invite you to follow me on Threads @pauloestreicher.