Back in 2021 at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Susan Michie, Professor of Health Psychology, Director for the Centre of Behavioural Change at UCL, and prominent member of the UK government’s Scientific Pandemic Insights group on Behaviour (SPI-B), was asked whether the fact that she was a card-carrying member of the British Communist Party had any bearing upon her obvious enthusiasm for ‘population-wide cultural shifts’ as a means of addressing the crisis. Indeed, one might reasonably question the ideological leanings of anyone who saw nothing wrong with a future in which the public wearing of facemasks would become a cultural norm. Michie’s response to accusations of potential political bias was both predictable and robust:

My politics are not anything to do with my scientific advice…The important thing is that when one gives scientific advice one does so using the expertise one has, not going beyond the expertise and being transparent about what expertise we provide. And I think that the kind of articles you refer to are a really disturbing kind of McCarthyite witch hunt thing, which I don’t think should have any place in a liberal, tolerant society.

This denial of any politicking seems to me to be rather defensive and implausible given that her professional objective is to use her scientific expertise to assist the implementation of policy. It is inconceivable to me that, in so doing, she would be able to avoid the cognitive biases that may determine her preferred mapping of science to policy. As a behavioural scientist, she, above all, should understand the ubiquity of such cognitive biases. Quite apart from which, such an ability to keep personal political leanings out of the equation would mark her out as being the first prominent behaviourist able to do so since the dawn of her discipline. The fact is that scientists in general, and behavioural scientists in particular, have a long history of political interest, often claiming that their science lies at the heart of their political convictions. More often than not, the science is invoked to support a particular view of how the future of mankind can best be assured. As a case in point, one might take a closer look at three scientists that are often held up as early pioneers of behavioural science: Ivan Pavlov, Konrad Lorenz, and B.F. Skinner.

Pavlov was a Russian but he was not a communist. In fact, he loathed communism with a passion, so much so that he begged Lenin to allow him to leave the country. However, Lenin had other ideas. He shared Pavlov’s political ideology of scientism (i.e. the belief that science was the most important force for social progress) and so Pavlov, with his experiments into conditioned reflexes, was just too important an asset to let go. Pavlov was indeed a political animal who could see how scientific behavioural insights might help with social engineering, but that didn’t mean he shared Lenin’s politics. Following an eye-opening trip to America, Pavlov returned to say this to Lenin:

For the kind of social experiment that you are making, I would not sacrifice a frog’s hind legs!

Meanwhile, over in Germany, scientism was brewing up quite a different picture of what was best for mankind, and the emerging politics was not short of a scientist or two willing to throw their weight behind the ideology du jour. For example, as soon he had the chance, the Austrian ethologist, Konrad Lorenz, eagerly signed up for the Nazi Party. In so doing, Lorenz had no qualms about forming a link between his scientific work and his political allegiances. In his application letter he wrote:

I’m able to say that my whole scientific work is devoted to the ideas of the National Socialists.

So when he was not leading his family of geese around the fields, flapping his arms and honking with encouragement, everyone’s favourite avuncular Nazi could be found supporting the pursuit of racial hygiene in his capacity as a member of the Office for Race Policy. In 1942, he participated in a study of 877 offspring of mixed German-Polish marriages to determine their potential for assimilation into German culture. Those who were not considered fit for assimilation met an alternative fate.

Naturally enough, following Germany’s defeat Konrad went a bit quiet about his political activities and he denied ever having been a Nazi — a strategy that was so successful that he was ultimately awarded the Nobel Prize. Of course, plenty of things were written about his past but he dismissed it all as a really disturbing kind of witch hunt thing, which he didn’t think should have any place in a liberal, tolerant society.

Thankfully, the story of the early development of behavioural science in America was not nearly as disturbing. But even there, the leading lights were shining the torch of scientism. In particular, the psychologist Burrhus Frederic Skinner (B. F. to his friends) founded the experimental analysis of behaviour in which operant conditioning was a key factor. He was also a political writer with some highly developed views on how insights into behavioural control could be put to good use to help mankind avoid self-destruction. Skinner favoured the use of positive reinforcement as a means of control, but that didn’t stop him writing:

If the world is to save any part of its resources for the future, it must reduce not only consumption but the number of consumers.

Many of his critics accused him of being totalitarian in his views but, of course, he denied this. No doubt he would just see himself as engaging in ‘paternalistic liberalism’, a description of behavioural control much preferred by Simon Ruda, co-founder of the UK government’s Nudge Unit.

It is precisely because we live in an era of paternalistic liberalism, in which governments see fit to adopt expertly supplied, surreptitious techniques of behavioural control, that we should worry about the political instincts of the experts concerned. As a member of the SPI-B during the pandemic, Professor Michie had a lot to say about the importance of ‘population-wide cultural shift’, but objected strongly to the idea that her communism might colour her views. She has also expressed the view that climate change poses a much greater existential threat than any future pandemic could, and so has been very active in using her behavioural insights expertise to socially engineer the sort of cultural shifts deemed necessary for the achievement of Net Zero. Once again, any suggestion that the anti-capitalist sentiment that lies at the heart of much of climate activism provides a good fit for someone with Professor Michie’s ideological leanings would be given short shrift by her. She would tell you that she is just providing scientific advice on how to achieve the necessary behavioural changes, and the fact that the changes concerned are music to her communistic ears is nobody’s business but her own. And it doesn’t help to hear that her colleagues never discuss politics, but somehow she knows they all share her views regarding inequalities within society. Nobody is fooled by these protests of political disinterest, and nobody should be complacent regarding the potential consequences.

Since her days on the SPI-B, Professor Michie has gone up in the world, having been appointed Chair of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health. This matters a great deal because the WHO is in the process of getting the World’s governments to sign up to the 2023 amendment of the WHO International Health Regulations (IHR). The amendment redefines and extends what constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and significantly strengthens and widens the scope of authority of the World Health Organisation’s Director General (DG) during such emergencies. Of greatest concern is that the amendments will give the DG powers to set up Emergency Committees (ECs) that have the authority “to issue legally binding instructions to states” regarding “medical and/or non-medical countermeasures to address a PHEIC”. This will transform the WHO into a global health emergency legislator with the power to sanction any nation that fails to implement its mandated emergency measures, whether they be in the midst of a pandemic or a supposedly climate-related health emergency. You’ve got to ask yourself if such powers should be granted to a DG who is receiving advice from a Technical Advisory Group headed up by a card-carrying communist. And what does that say regarding the political leanings of the WHO as a whole?

There are many, I’m sure, who would be asking right now just what is wrong with communism anyway, and would dismiss my concerns, accusing me of looking for reds under the beds. Maybe I am wrong to be concerned, and perhaps Professor Michie can be taken at her word when she claims pure scientific objectivity within her role, despite a long history of behaviourists failing in that regard. All I will say is this: If the population-wide cultural shifts demanded to achieve Net Zero are anything to go by, then I’m inclined to side with Pavlov and say to Michie that, for the kind of social experiment that she is making, I would not sacrifice a frog’s hind legs!