Science Is Not Something You Listen To
Over the past couple of years, “listen to science” has been present in countless tweets and media soundbites. I find this slogan to be a brain virus, even damaging. Allow me to explain why by deconstructing it:
Who is this “science” that we ought to listen to? The discipline of science does not talk; is a tool for reasoning about hypotheses. “Science” in the slogan refers to the scientific establishment. Scientific and public health organizations do talk, and what they say is often unscientific.
What does “listen” mean? This is not a friend telling us why she loves a movie and we must watch it. This is more of a call to compliance. “Science says that you must pick up your can, citizen.”
In an implicit way, the slogan is telling us to not listen to anyone who does not preach the scientific gospel.
But what happens when the scientific establishment says the wrong thing? It happens all the time. Exhibit A:
Strictly speaking the above is not “wrong.” From a scientific point of view, “no clear evidence of X” gives us no information at all. There are an infinite number of imaginable phenomena for which there is no clear evidence. However, the choice of words is criminally misleading. They knew that human-to-human transmission could be catastrophic if it were true. There was no clear evidence that it was (yet). Were we right to listen to them and happily go about our lives? Obviously the answer was no. This is politics, not scientific research. The above statement was not science. It was politics wearing a science costume.
Given that the WHO and other organizations were wrong often and in bad ways during the pandemic, what should we do when we encounter an absolutist assertion from a scientific organization? We cannot accept it at face value, and we also cannot ignore it. So what to do?
The best option is do DO science ourselves. A scientist is not defined by credentials, the same way a driver is not defined by having a license. If you are in the driver’s seat, you are driving, license or no. For example, let’s take a look at the following statement:
vaccines are long-term safe.
Without any further context, this is not a scientific statement. What does safe mean? Compared to what? For whom? Over what period of time? The important thing from an individual perspective is to assess risk/reward. This is something all of us do every day, without thinking about it. What is the risk of driving to the beach? There is some chance of dying. What is the reward? A fun day. If we were computers we would crunch the numbers and decide that the risk is worth it, at least most of the time.
When deciding to get the mRNA vaccine from Pfizer, I did some research. I wanted to understand why prominent medical authorities were convinced that the vaccine had no serious long-term issues. I found arguments like this one:
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that the current COVID-19 vaccines will cause long-term problems in years to come. And in this case, where there’s been rigorous research on the topic, no news is good news.
…
From years of research on vaccines, genetics and different coronaviruses, along with the massive combined international effort of monitoring and reporting on side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, we can conclude that there aren’t likely to be significant long-term side effects from COVID-19 vaccines.
In other words, they are pretty sure but the “there is no scientific evidence” gambit must give us pause. “There aren’t likely to be” is not a scientific statement. Does “aren’t likely” mean one percent chances? Ten percent? There can be nothing conclusive, simply because there has been no time to carry out a longitudinal study with a control group. I do know that unvaccinated Covid could be really bad for a 52-year-old like me, and I do know that the short-term negative effects of the vaccines are rare. Therefore, I decided the reward was worth the risk. The problem is that this risk/reward ratio is not universal. If you are the parent of a five-year-old child, there is much more time for side effects to manifest themselves. On the other hand, Covid appears to be much less risky for children. I could not tell the parent of a five-year-old what to do, because there is no absolute answer based on evidence.
For me, an important lesson from the past two years of the pandemic is: organizations and governments have conflicts of interests. When they present a course of action, it is not necessarily in my best interest or yours. Politicians are very good at convincing, that is their job. However, they are rarely good at science. Scientific research takes time, especially with humans as subjects. Slogans like “listen to science” urge people to stop thinking for themselves. Things like lockdowns, shutdowns, remote work, travel suspension, they all have costs and benefits for public health (leaving economic issues aside). The best political outcome for a government may not be aligned with the health outcome of their constituents. A better course of action for a given person could be:
Do your own research.
If you reach the limits of your understanding, find more qualified people you can trust.
Listen to experts with dissenting opinions, follow their reasonings. Evaluate the evidence they present. Keep in mind their personal values, agendas, conflicts of interest.
Make the choices that appear to be objectively best for you, based on your values, personal priorities and evidence.
I am sure that the CDC and the WHO were convinced that doing this would have resulted in a lower vaccination rate. Perhaps they believe that the anti vaccine movement is larger than it is, because of how vocal they are in social media. Do we know for sure that “listen to science, trust us because we know better?” increased the vaccination rate at the cost of reducing critical thinking? No, because paradoxically the slogan is not backed by scientific research. It was just their hunch.