There has been no shortage of examples in recent years of politicians attacking science in order to further their personal agendas. It can range from Gov. Andrew Cuomo suppressing data about COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes to a California state agency improperly approving oil-drilling permits without an appropriate water quality review, the subject of a recent lawsuit. But it should come as no surprise that self-serving assaults on science that flourished during the pandemic (and show little signs of receding since), particularly in the right-wing media, have made their way from Capitol Hill to state capitals near and far. If it works in Washington, D.C., the practitioners must reason, why not in Albany or Sacramento or Annapolis for that matter?

A new report by New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice and the Union of Concerned Scientists raises this issue. The authors have documented case after case of manipulation and politicization. Sometimes, it’s the suppression of data. Other times, it’s elected officials intimidating or censoring scientists, or substituting authentic research with pseudoscientific junk in order to reach a preferred conclusion. Just look at how Anthony S. Fauci, the retired virologist and former White House chief pandemic adviser, was attacked from the far-right — so much so that he still has a security detail assigned him. It’s one thing to have a civil debate on the merits of scientific research, it’s another to recommend “someone needs to grab that little elf and chuck him across the Potomac,” as Republican presidential candidate and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis did just last year.

States can’t do much about know-nothing politicians spouting hate-speech, of course, but they can set laws that safeguard science and scientists. Among those recommended in the Brennan Center report would be to set some minimum standards for scientific integrity and to require states to use the “best available” science when making decisions. Yet only two states (Wisconsin and California) have adopted the former and just 22 the latter. Maryland is not among them. Given that the next Maryland General Assembly session is still two months away, there would seem to be plenty of time to propose just such a statute. That’s not to suggest that the Old Line State, home to leading research institutions like the University of Maryland and the Johns Hopkins University, is a big offender, but such protections would seem prudent in these volatile times.

There are a number of avenues to explore. Protecting experts like Dr. Fauci from intimidation ought to be part of the mix. Setting some minimum standards for scientific advisory committees might be another, particularly when it comes to hot-button issues like immunization or mental health or health equity. Some of the reforms recommended in the report should find support from Democrats and Republicans alike. They include protecting whistleblowers against retaliation, strengthening ethics standards and requiring public access to publicly-funded research.

As tempting as it might be to blame Donald Trump for much of the anti-science rhetoric that has invaded the public forum, this was a problem before he ever entered the political scene. The AIDS epidemic of the 1980s also brought out a lot of tension between scientists and politicians. If anything, the rise of the coronavirus merely amplified long-standing hostility that might even be traced to the debate over teaching human evolution in schools nearly a century ago.

The public should be able to trust those whose job it is to set health, safety and environmental standards — just to name three important fields — to use real science and not the fake kind whether in Maryland or anywhere else.