Let’s Talk Science

Article by Dr. John E. Kello

Throughout the changing conditions of the pandemic between early 2020 and 2024, government officials tried to figure out what policies should be in place. Should face masks be mandatory? Should they be required everywhere and at all times? Which businesses should stay closed, and which ones can be partially or fully re-opened, and when? How about our public schools (a heated topic, to be sure)?

In the policy debate, which continues, we are all hearing a lot more than usual about science. When a local, state, or national leader takes a stance that others disagree with (say, opening up too soon, locking down for too long, promoting or disputing the effectiveness of any particular treatment, specifying the number of booster shots required), the argument most often made is “we should follow the science” and just do what the scientists recommend.

I am a scientist. Through undergraduate and graduate training, I learned the scientific method, and I learned how to think critically, to be skeptical of claims on my belief, to make observations, frame hypotheses, collect data, interpret the data, draw conclusions, and “go where the data take you.”

Let me tell you a few things I know as an insider about science. Science is not values-neutral; it is not always dispassionate, objective, and unbiased. It is comforting to think that scientists work tirelessly in their labs and force nature to give up her secrets, that they always simply go where the data lead them, no matter where that may be. It is comforting to believe that to determine the best strategy to follow in any situation, including a horrible and devastating pandemic, “just follow the science”.

Here’s the rub. So-called settled science can and does change over time, across different cultures, and oftentimes from scientist-to-scientist here and now. The history of science is full of examples of widely-accepted scientific “fact” being rejected, and old theories being replaced by radically different ones. We are pretty sure that the earth is not the center of the universe, that combustible substances don’t burn because they contain and then release a hypothetical substance called “phlogiston”, that various species of living organisms actually evolve through natural selection (not intelligent design), that people from Mediterranean countries are not genetically less intelligent than northern Europeans (a scientific “fact” that informed immigration policy in the early years of the 20th century), that contrary to classical economic theory the decisions we make are often “predictably irrational” (to borrow the title of an excellent book on the paradigm-breaking field of behavioral economics), that our physical and psychological characteristics are always the joint product of nature and nurture (not nature or nurture), and that quite a few of our best-supported theories in psychology initially thought to be universal actually don’t apply very well in non-western cultures.

Science is indeed more secure, more reliable, and more valid than other ways of knowing. When the methodology is followed to the extent possible, the conclusions of science are good ones to believe in and to put to use at any point in time. Science, when well done, employs the best tools available. But science ain’t perfect.

Especially in dealing with new, complex, and evolving phenomena (like a pandemic), there is rarely permanent, settled science. At any point in time, my scientific brothers and sisters may look at exactly the same data, using exactly the same methods, and draw different conclusions. So may the policy makers who are “following the science”.

In the cool light of hindsight, what “facts” do we know about the coronavirus? Here are a few things we know. We know that some scientists saw it as “nothing to worry about” early on (we will flatten the curve in 2 weeks, we were told), while others were gravely concerned (we are all going to suffer with the virus). We know that some of the models, on which predictions were made about infection, hospitalization, and fatality rates, were based on faulty assumptions. We know that not all were equally at risk; older people and those with underlying health conditions were at vastly greater risk for serious consequences including death from the virus than were the young and healthy. We know that the social isolation attendant upon the lockdowns and school closings was correlated with an alarming increase in suicide, opioid addiction, and self-harm, especially among teens. We know that remote learning was not effective for many schoolchildren. We know that our understanding of the virus (and possible mutations) even six years later is still evolving and changing rapidly. We know that the multiple vaccines did not, in fact, fully protect one from getting COVID. We know that the origin of the virus remains unclear.

“Look to the science” and “Just follow the science” are comforting and reassuring statements, but scientists know (or should know) that the same methods resulting in the same data can lead to very different conclusions, and can be used to support very different policies, and all of that can and likely will evolve over time (“masks don’t help… yes they do… not cloth masks though… use N95s… double-mask… mask at all times… mask in social situations… masks for people of all ages… masks should be optional…”).

My focus in this essay has been on COVID, but the pandemic is hardly the only macro issue on which public policy is based and on which scientists, at least some scientists, disagree. Just think about policies inspired by the prospect of man-made climate change (formerly global warming).

To raise questions about a scientist or policy-maker’s current position is not to deny science. Scientific truth is a moving target, generally a best guess based on available data and the current interpretation of those data. Again, science is not values-neutral. Set aside the painful reality that some scientists have faked their data and committed massive fraud, identified over the years in a handful of cases that ultimately garnered widespread attention. Even when conducted ethically, science is not infallible. “Scientists agree” is almost always a partial truth in itself, subject to legitimate debate and further review.