What I was trying to get at when I was talking about reputational cascades—and you had an esteemed witness before who was talking about the natural sciences—is that I think the research in the social sciences and humanities is just fundamentally different here.
Let's say you're trying to research something like the effectiveness of harm reduction. We know that people on the political spectrum psychologically just have different makeups. When you're going to assess what the costs of harm reduction are, and why it would work or why it wouldn't work, you want people in the room who are doing research on that topic to come from the full diversity of perspectives in order to really fundamentally assess that. When you don't have that, the danger is that you get certain stories told, certain bullet points, that are accepted within academic disciplines as true, as operating assumptions, and they just haven't been tested. It's due to this kind of cascade of untested information.