“Follow the science” has become the mantra to chant during our collective worship services every time Saint Fauci or the Holy Church of the CDC issue a new order… I mean, “recommendation.” Obviously, when dealing with an international pandemic, we should rely on scientific evidence and predictions to inform our decisions. It’s another thing when those who issue edicts berate anyone who sincerely questions the effectiveness or practicality of those edicts and tell us we must “follow the science.”
I guess we were supposed to forget that two weeks to flatten the curve quickly evolved into varying degrees of house arrest across the country. Those who scoffed at wearing masks in public (and admitted their uselessness in private correspondence) now tell us to wear two or three masks when almost none of the masks most of us wear provide any noteworthy protection against super-microscopic coronaviruses. Even public COVID data is unreliable because we don’t know the reliability rate of COVID tests, and coroners have been told to classify those who die with COVID as dying from COVID.
And while political science is considered a “soft science” and biology, physics, chemistry, etc., are “hard sciences,” both kinds of disciplines use the same basic methodology, undergo similar peer review processes, and expect claims to be supported with evidence. As a political scientist trained in the scientific method and statistical analysis, I, Dr. Stephanie Stanley, can tell you that some of the experts claiming to practice science and medicine are actually practicing politics.
1. There is no such thing as “the science.”
By definition, all hard and soft sciences are based on skepticism, doubt, and inquiry. Those of us in these disciplines test each other’s assumptions, must back up our claims with evidence others can vet and test, and are expected to be open to new data and criticism. Those who say “the science” don’t seem to understand what science actually is.
First, in genuine scientific inquiries, biologists and political scientists alike are trained to prove their hypotheses wrong, not right. They test what is called a “null hypothesis,” which is the inverse of what they expect an experimental or statistical outcome will be. So instead of testing the hypothesis “masks are effective at decreasing the transmission of COVID-19” scientists are taught to test the null hypothesis “masks are not effective at decreasing the transmission of COVID-19.”
Secondly, when a researcher has credible evidence to support their theory, they rarely say that their theory is correct. Look at peer reviewed papers, and you’ll see language like “the data supports” or “these findings are statistically significant.” It’s standard for scientific papers to conclude by discussing the future research needed to verify their findings. Certitude is a rare thing in science. In this way, science is an ongoing process of discovery with relatively few “laws” like the laws of motion. And even laws have exceptions.
Thirdly, qualified and respectable scientists disagree, and in uncorrupted academic settings, those disagreements are encouraged. And sometimes experts come to opposite conclusions because they have different data or analyze the same data in different ways. Making changes to statistical analysis, research design, and data selection can produce variation in results and lead scientists to come to divergent conclusions and recommendations at odds with each other. A good rule of thumb is if scientists haven’t studied a phenomenon in numerous studies over several years, true scientific consensus (aka, “the science”) almost never exists. The same is true for new viruses like COVID-19.
2. “The Science” is creating “the politics.”
As much as I hate to admit it, there is a long and twisted history of the relationship between science and politics that doesn’t always end well. Eugenics is one example of this. Unfortunately, not much has changed. Each side cloaks their arguments with scientific data even both sides can’t be right when “their sciences” contradict each other.
It’s the same thing with COVID-19. Kamala Harris refused to get the shot when Trump was president, but now she has (the shot hasn’t changed), and she wants the rest of us to roll up our sleeves. What is more, any medical expert who disagrees with the lockdowns, opposes blanket vaccine mandates, wants to use therapeutics like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, or even raises valid questions about policies and treatments runs the risk of being censored, fired, or both (see The New PR Campaign). Now Biden is getting ahead of his scientific skis with the booster shot.
True science is predicated on open inquiry, public debates, and the burden of proof is placed squarely on those who make scientific claims. What we have is partisan politics and power grabs thinly veiled behind a mythical, infallible phenomenon they call “the science.” Even when their claims are right, many question their credibility, and I don’t blame them.
As a result, sadly far too many are afraid to seek medical help when they test positive for COVID-19 and have a hard time trusting the treatments their doctors recommend because some public officials and medical professionals have let political power plays taint medicine. I know this was the case for my dad who died due to complications from COVID-19 less than a month ago (see Life After a COVID Death ). Enough is enough.
3. Hard sciences aren’t the only disciplines that should be studied while crafting policies.
Do you remember the children’s book that starts, “If you give a mouse a cookie, he’ll want so milk to go with it,” and then the rest of the book is a series of requests the mouse has based on the granted request he had just made? Public policy works the same way, although its domino effect is multi-directional.
The same principle applies to public health policies. Obviously, this is an area in which we must consult physicians and experts of virology. Ideally, we would seek counsel from medical professionals from a variety of specialties with different recommendations on how to proceed. But we shouldn’t stop there. It’s just as important that we consider the economic, social, psychological, and other impacts of our health policies. If we end up with pristine public health, yet unemployment is double what it’s ever been, suicide rates are through the roof, the environment is destroyed, and society is falling apart, it doesn’t seem worth it.
While it’s an extreme scenario, I hope my point is clear. Making policy decisions like anything else in life is a delicate balancing act; go too far in any direction, and the costs quickly begin to outweigh the benefits. The same is true for the policies and recommendations related to COVID-19. There is so much more to life than living in a bubble so we never deal with illness, life-threatening or otherwise.
(Check out Dr. Scott Atlas on this topic, as well.)
Closing Thoughts
Still convinced there is such a thing as “the science?” Okay, well I’m off to study “the politics.” If other scientists get to absolute in their disciplines and no one’s going to object, don’t think for a moment it will stop with them. And you got to believe me, I’m a political doctor.
Subscribe for free to get new Modest Proposals posts in your inbox each Monday and Thursday!
Photo:
"Test tubes and other recipients in chemistry lab" by Horia Varlan is licensed under CC BY 2.0
https://search.creativecommons.org/photos/b47a0fca-9c58-428b-88a2-691de9e8ecdf