Brad Paquette, a Michigan state representative, expressed skepticism about the credibility of public science communicators in a series of posts on September 6, 2025.
In his first post, Paquette wrote: “People who make money from playing ‘The Science Guy’ in the public eye have destroyed trust. They have done our country immense harm. COVID, Climate Policies, Gender Theory… are all based upon shoddy science in the name of The Science, and the house of cards is falling.” (September 6, 2025)
Later that day, he continued: “Everyone with influence can be lobbied and bought. Politicians often are not trusted, but who funds them can mostly be seen. The people who are put in white coats to play The Science in the media have no campaign finance or ethics laws to adhere to.” (September 6, 2025)
A third post by Paquette included a rhetorical question alongside two images: “Do I look like I passed science class now?” (September 6, 2025)
Paquette’s comments reflect ongoing debates regarding public trust in scientific experts and their role in shaping policy decisions. In recent years, controversies over topics such as COVID-19 response measures and climate change policy have led some political figures and members of the public to question both the transparency and motivations of scientists appearing in media settings. Unlike elected officials—who are subject to campaign finance disclosures and various ethics regulations—media science communicators generally operate without comparable oversight.
