You would have to be living a solitary existence in a remote cave not to be aware of the extreme polarization of our politics. Virtually everyone is concerned by the creeping political polarization in the media, universities, and businesses. However, many of us still cling to the naïve assumption that science is a safe harbor from this polarization. Science is supposed to be the unflinching pursuit of the “truth.” But is it? And might the politicization of science impact Coloradans health and public policy?

That science is not the arbiter of unvarnished truth is a sad but an increasingly undeniable reality. There are many contemporary examples of this, but perhaps the clearest illustration arises from the most vexing source of political polarization — abortion rights vs. prenatal human rights.

Sometimes publication bias simply distorts our understanding of reality. The Turnaway study is widely cited by abortion researchers, abortion rights groups, and mainstream media as the most definitive research on the physical, psychological and economic benefits of abortion. It compared outcomes from women who had an abortion to those who sought an abortion but were denied an abortion because of gestational age limits at different abortion clinics across the country. Few scientists had the willingness to point out the small survey-based study was susceptible to significant participation bias since women with the most unfavorable experiences are the least likely to respond to surveys and the most likely to drop out early. An astounding 83% of survey participants dropped out by the 5-year conclusion of the study. This suggests the reported results may substantially exaggerate the benefits of abortion. The fact that abortion rights advocates conducted and submitted the research is omitted from the required conflict of interest disclosures.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Selective reporting of research results is another problem. The most common Turnaway reference is, “95% of women who’ve had an abortion say it is the right decision.” What is omitted in both the scientific papers and media reporting is 96% of women denied an abortion eventually no longer wished they had an abortion. Contrary to the notion women are certain about their need for an abortion, the study revealed within one week of being denied an abortion, a whopping 35% no longer wanted one.

Sometimes the belief in abortion rights seems to create scientific blind spots when pursuing reproductive health care research. There has been an urgent need to address increasing infant and maternal mortality in Colorado which disproportionately affect people of color. Premature birth is a significant driver of infant mortality and maternal mortality. In 2021, a panel of experts published an exhaustive analysis of the factors that might contribute to the racial disparities in preterm birth which they acknowledged had a devastating impact in the Black community.

Despite evaluating 33 “hypothesized” causes of the racial disparity, the one cause they omitted was surgical abortions. This is very curious since the connection between surgical abortions and preterm birth has been suggested since at least 2009. Furthermore, it is widely recognized the abortion rate for Black women is four times the rate for White women. It strains credulity to believe reproductive health researchers weren’t influenced by their predisposition toward abortion rights when evaluating the racially disparate factors that lead to the scourge of preterm birth.

Coloradans need to recognize science isn’t always objective and is prone to the same political biases that permeate the rest of our society. You can bet other politically charged issues such as gender-affirming care or racial/ethnic differences in disease prevalences/management are influenced by contemporary politics as well. Coloradans need to remain aware of the politicization of science as activists advance politically charged scientific arguments in an attempt to pass legislation and ballot initiatives this year.

The scientific community should require their members to disclose political/ideological conflicts of interests just as they are required to disclose financial conflicts of interests. And it would behoove clinical researchers and their scientific media allies to go the extra mile to evaluate all the implications of their research, even when it conflicts with their underlying political assumptions.

Thomas J. Perille, M.D., is president of Democrats for Life of Colorado.