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)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe