Science Heritage Journal | Galeri Warisan Sains (GWS)

The integration of emotional reasoning into scientific discourse, particularly within biological sciences, poses significant challenges to the objectivity and empirical rigor essential for advancing knowledge and informing policy. This article explores how emotionality- rooted in personal biases, cultural and ethical concerns, and cognitive distortions- interferes with bio-scientific method, which relies on systematic observation, experimentation, and data validation to establish objective truths. Biological sciences, encompassing fields like genetics, microbiology, biotechnology, biochemistry, biomedicine, evolutionary biology among many others, frequently address ethically charged topics such as genetic modification, animal experimentation, climate change, and artificial insemination, making them susceptible to emotional resistance. This resistance often manifests as public misconceptions, regulatory overreach, and cognitive biases, undermining evidence -based decision making. Through case studies, this article illustrates how emotional appeals overshadow empirical evidence such as persistence opposition to genetically modified organisms despite robust safety data, emotive backlash facing animal experimentation and artificial insemination in both animal and humans, and climate change denial and vaccine hesitancy reflecting economic fears and misinformation amplified by media sensationalism. Furthermore, the regulation of biological processes and products reveals how emotional influences usually termed “yuck factor” or naturalistic fallacy can delay innovation and skew policies away from scientific consensus. To bridge the gap between emotions and evidence-based biological sciences, strategies including transparent science communication, public education, ethical frameworks that balance moral concerns with empirical realities, and risk-benefit analyses in policymaking were proposed. By distinguishing emotional reasoning from empirical evidence, this study underscores the necessity of safeguarding biological sciences from subjective interference to maximize societal benefits while addressing legitimate ethical considerations.