The intersection of science and politics has long been debated, but in biological anthropology, a field deeply tied to human identity, evolution, and diversity, the boundary between objective research and political discourse is particularly fraught. I recently attended and presented at the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (AABA) conference in Baltimore MD. where discussions highlighted the precarious position of the discipline as federal funding cuts threaten research opportunities. This reality brings forth a pressing question: when does biological anthropology become political? While some argue that science only becomes political when it intersects with religion, the reality is far broader. Political language is not solely about religious debates but rather the framing of issues, the interpretation of scientific findings, and the potential implications for policy. For example, research on human variation, race, and ancestry, though grounded in genetic and skeletal evidence, often finds itself entangled in cultural and political debates. The same data that supports a continuous model of human variation can be used to challenge or reinforce ideologies related to identity and historical narratives.
Scientific claims become political when they are framed in ways that align with or challenge specific ideological positions, even if the researchers themselves aim for neutrality. While stating that “NSF funding for anthropology has declined” is an objective fact, emphasizing the role of a particular political party or administration in those cuts crosses into political territory. The broader social context also plays a role in how statements are received where scientific facts may be neutral in intention but become politically charged when they intersect with issues like immigration, public health, or environmental policy. This raises a critical challenge for scholars: how can they communicate their research effectively while maintaining the non-partisan stance required by professional organizations with 501(c) status? The answer may lie in focusing on the empirical foundations of research while acknowledging the socio-political implications without advocacy. In today’s polarized climate, the question is not just whether science is political, but how and why different audiences perceive it as such.
