Opinion: How science and reality can fight back against ‘alternative facts’

Jamie Tijerina, a scientist who works in Caltech's cytometry lab, said the Trump administration's moves have prompted her to consider running for political office.
(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: As a scientist, I am aware that many Republicans have for years rejected mainstream evolution and climate science. But I worry more about the acceptance of “alternative facts” since President Trump took office. (“Concerned about Trump, scientists are leaning into politics,” Feb. 9)

I would very much like The Times to ask all our lawmakers the following yes-or-no questions and report their answers:

Do you believe the U.S. intelligence community reports that Russians interfered with the campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton?

Do you believe that millions of people voted illegally for Clinton?


Do you believe that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million people?

The answers to these questions might determine the extent to which Trump has a “mandate,” but more importantly they would give constituents, regardless of their political leanings, knowledge of where their representatives stand on verifiable reality versus “alternative facts.”

Andy McCollum, Mount Vernon, Iowa


To the editor: Now our scientists have to march and protest for facts to be counted as real? I have a great solution:

Let’s create an alternate U.S. Food and Drug Administration for those who believe in alternative facts and have it do its research based on ideological and political persuasion. Let those people take the medications that end up being approved and see where it gets them.

The rest of us can follow the real FDA.

Noelle De Vita, Valencia

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook