New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

We're Being Tested

President Trump pointed out yesterday that if we didn't do any testing for the virus we would have very few cases, which forces us to confront the issues posed by testing in general.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

President Donald J. Trump: “We have more cases than anybody in the world. But why? Because we do more testing. When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn't do any testing, we would have very few cases.”

The logic is unassailable. As writer Quinn Cummings tweeted almost immediately after the President’s remarks, “Remember kids: You don’t want a baby? Stay away from pregnancy tests!”

But think about what this no-testing idea could really mean. Have you had a colonoscopy? I have. Have you had a mammogram? I have not, but I hear they’re pretty rough. So think about what we could do to cut colon and breast cancer cases by simply doing away with those tests.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


And think of all the poor children who are tested for various conditions, especially the newborns and their genetic tests. Why put the little tykes through it?

And have you considered the impact on sports? I mean, without testing for performance enhancing drugs, if baseball is ever played again the records could just be demolished. And what kind of an Olympics could we have without testing for drugs. Swimming records, track and field records—these would just be absolutely decimated. It would be a wonder to behold. But anything wind-aided would still be disqualified. Because, hey, rules are rules.

And obviously if we stop testing for the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there won’t be any noticeable increase in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And need I even mention the annoying interruptions to our television programming with the emergency broadcast test. Let’s do away with those. And never have to deal with the possibility of a national emergency.

Trump: “And we have prevailed. We will continue to prevail.”

—Steve Mirsky

(The above text is a transcript of this podcast)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe