The Retreat from Reason

Fighting for the Facts

“We aren’t just fighting climate change anymore — we’re fighting for the right to use facts to solve it.”

Editor’s Note: Every so often, a piece of science writing lands with the clarity of a warning bell that reverberates in your mind. The publication of Robert McDonald and colleagues’ new study in Nature Sustainability is one of those moments. They warn that the global framework sustaining environmental progress—i.e., the shared trust in science and international cooperation—is cracking under political pressure.

I asked Rob, a longtime friend and former colleague from The Nature Conservancy, to unpack what’s happening, why it matters, and what we can do about it.

*******

“The foundation of our work—objective science and global cooperation—is being dismantled by a rising tide of autocratization.” So writes Rob McDonald and his coauthors, as they argue that

that the very basis of the sustainability movement is under threat.

In their article, “Uncharted Political Waters for Sustainability”, they explain that for decades, two big assumptions guided the field:

1. That the environment is a global entity that we can measure objectively, and

2. That the world’s biggest problems demand multilateral solutions—through institutions like the IPCC or the Paris Agreement.

But this bedrock foundation is now being eroded. Their paper tracks a decline in the Academic Freedom Index (AFI) and deliberative governance in many countries and argues that we are experiencing a “retreat from reason.” As governments grow skeptical of inconvenient data and dismissive of international forums, the science-to-policy pipeline breaks.

That’s why I’m especially glad Rob has agreed to talk with us about this research and what it means for those of us committed to science-based environmental progress. This timely challenge deserves our full attention. And it begs the question—what are we going to do about it?

Q: Thanks for doing this with us Rob. First, tell us a little bit about you. What is your current role, and what are some of your career highlights?

My background is as a plant ecologist, so I fell in love with conservation while spending time in the woods, counting seedlings and tracking rare plants. I then got interested in why the rare plants I loved were getting disturbed by development, and started working on urban planning and conservation. Then, at some point in my career I shifted from protecting nature from people to planning better what nature can do for people, what’s now called nature-based solutions. So, the topic we are discussing today was a departure from what I usually write about! But it became so clear to my fellow scientists and I that the current political climate was affecting sustainability science that we felt compelled to write this comment.

Q: For years, the mantra for scientists was avoid politics to maintain credibility. But you argue that the golden age of evidence-based governance may be over. Are you suggesting that being apolitical is now a luxury the scientific community can no longer afford?

No, in a way we are saying the opposite! That is, we tried in our essay to talk about the global trend toward autocracy, and what it means for certain bedrock principles of scientific integrity and having evidence-based decision-making in public policy. Those are apolitical principles; they don’t favor any political party necessarily. But they are key if sustainability scientists are going to meaningfully engage with public policy.

Q: If scientists become more politically vocal in defending democratic institutions, do we risk feeding the very “anti-science” narratives that autocrats use to dismiss us? How do we balance principled advocacy with institutional neutrality?

I think scientists and science institutions need to be vocal in defending scientific integrity and the value of science. In a sense, we need to have a positive narrative about science, that battles back against this idea that truth is whatever those in power want it to be. But I would note that having a pro-science narrative is different than being a political partisan. For instance, it is one thing to talk about the recent rejection of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding by the US government, and that it really is at odds with the scientific consensus that climate change endangers human health and well-being. That’s just a scientific fact. It is another thing to talk about politics (political parties and advocacy), which is something that science institutions, per se, should stop short of doing in my opinion.

Q: You’ve noted that autocratization makes global cooperation harder to sell. How should we frame our efforts then? Should we pivot away from grand multilateral “save-the-planet” narratives and focus more on local benefits — things like energy security or public health—even if that risks softening the global call for collaboration?

We argue in our essay that one tactic is to work locally or nationally, where progress is still possible on environmental issues, if global cooperation is blocked. But that only works for some issues. For truly global problems, like climate change, some sort of global cooperation, based upon scientific evidence, will be needed, which is why we think it is so important to have a positive narrative around the value of science and evidence-based decision-making.

Q: Much of the data we rely on comes from government-funded institutions. In an era of autocratization, how do we “autocracy-proof” our datasets? Should the private sector or philanthropy step in to build a parallel, independent infrastructure for environmental monitoring?

Yes, I think the scientific community needs to think about how it can keep working globally to assess the state of the global environment, even when particular national governments are opposed to that effort. That can mean the private sector and philanthropy stepping up to fund and maintain these global science efforts, sure. But it can also mean more support from public-sector institutions in countries still committed to scientific integrity and evidence-based decision-making.

Q: In this environment, I’m concerned that CEOs or board members may hesitate to defend scientific findings and academic freedom, worrying that it could endanger their license to operate. What would you say to them?

There are real worries for some institutions about their ability to operate, and I respect those who worry about them. I understand the impulse to “keep your head down.” However, I would encourage people to think not just about the short term (what do I do that will help keep me operating over the next few months) and more about the long term. For many companies and institutions, their reputation is their biggest asset. Standing up for science is part of that reputation. If you want your reputation to be good in the long term, then I would argue you have to be willing to take some risks now.

Q: If you had a room full of the world’s top environmental donors, what’s one thing you would ask them to fund tomorrow to counter these specific risks?

That’s a great question, I don’t know! In some ways, our essay was about pointing out a particular problem, and a call to action on it, not pretending that we have all the solutions. But I would say that philanthropy specifically to support international global environmental science collaborations (like IPCC, IPBES, etc.) will be really key, as will organizing new institutions that can nurture global science in a time of growing autocracy.

Q: Most readers of The Instigator care deeply about protecting nature and want to engage on a direct and personal basis. They want to accelerate progress, usually emphasizing practicality, not ideology. What advice do you have for them? How can individuals and institutions sustain the momentum for science-based action in this political climate?

On this specific issue, on supporting scientific integrity, one thing individuals can do is support science-based sources of information, like credible journalism or Wikipedia. And then for those of your readers who lead institutions, having those institutions take little actions to support science integrity will be important.

Q. We’ve talked mostly about how best to address mounting challenges. Let’s end on a positive note. What do you think is going well these days?

There has been tremendous growth in the renewable energy sector, so even with the UNFCCC process somewhat stalled and slowed, there is still some significant progress toward decarbonization.

Q. Any other ideas or recommendations you want to bring to the attention of our readers?

I think it is worthwhile for American readers to step back and look at the global political trends for some perspective. While we are in a troubling period of a global shift toward autocracy, that is uneven among regions, and there are some really positive trends in some countries. And then while the last few decades have seen a troubling trend toward autocracy, the global trend since the end of WWII has been one of an expansion of democracy. I try to keep that optimistic picture in mind.

Thanks, Rob.

Onward,