That's when scientific "truth" can be labelled by "realists" as "unhelpful" or "a disruption that only strengthens the critics". How often have I been accused of just fueling the populist right with my pro-environment stance. As if!

That's when I personally buckle down on my analytical insights as a scientist - combined with the core of ethical ideals upon which our culture is built even as we flount them all the time: that inclusive justice and safeguarding the future are an obligation.

3/4

That's when what I call "toxic realism" becomes a danger: the seduction of scientists to frame analytical conclusions in a way that adapts to what seems feasible, arguing it's better to achieve progress than be right but powerless. I'm told in such discussions a version of: "Being right and idealistic buys you nothing if there's no path to power, change. So don't insist like you do when it just burns bridges."

But all too often, I find it's the analytical findings that end up subverted.

2/4

This - now - is the time to stick to our knowledge, double down; not fluidly adapt it to a field awash with political propaganda.

In the end, we need both: work within the system, but also without. One should not accuse others of naiveté; but consider it a division of labour.

Personally, I'm more interested in the subversive power of scientific insight to change societies than the sober realities of political power equations. Such insight will win out in the end. Of that I am convinced.

4/4