Until recently, it was fashionable to praise the genius of Elon Musk behind the wheel of a Tesla. Now, harshly condemning the iconoclastic owner of Twitter is more socially acceptable.
Musk may be a controversial figure, but he’s also a strong advocate for science who wants Twitter to “follow science, which necessarily involves reasonable questioning of science.”
Like a beacon in a storm, science has guided all our decisions during the pandemic. If science seems to emerge a winner from this crisis, the fact remains that doubt, the cornerstone of the scientific method, has taken its toll over the past three years.
In order to counter crass misinformation and increase adherence to health measures, the pendulum may have moved a little too much. The politicization of science has converted it into dogma, indisputable and intangible. Result: a certain muzzling of discordant voices, yet essential, and a science seen in the light of immutable and absolute truth.
To the scourge of anti-science heresy we have opposed the orthodoxy of a ” science is real which knowingly omits the “until proven otherwise”.
To advance, science requires two fundamental elements: the candor to recognize that an assumption can be corrected by new facts, and the freedom to disseminate, debate, test and replicate assumptions. The pandemic has eroded these principles.
This is not surprising, because if science erects itself on its errors and its capacity to confess its ignorance, the politician perceives this kind of declarations as an admission of weakness, even of failure.
Moreover, the pandemic heyday of science has surprisingly not led to the expected proliferation of randomized controlled studies or even the explosion of natural experiments that many predicted.
Admittedly, many nations have rather wasted a good crisis. A crisis from which we are emerging hardly better informed than at the start as to the panoply of strategies and measures used or shunned throughout the world. Let us think, among other things, of the still nebulous effectiveness of curfews or air filters. Only a science free from the doctrinal yoke can turn over all the stones.
In this context, some are advocating a frank divorce between science and politics. At the very least, these two pillars should, like the bride and groom, “each fill the other’s cup, but not drink from the same cup”.
In a variety of ways, politics can help science overcome the serious problems that the pandemic has accentuated: slippery shortcuts, pseudo-publications, restricted academic freedom, and reliance on private funding. Conversely, science has the potential to positively influence politics.
Let’s be honest: currently, state reforms are too often based on theoretical models or good intentions.
Fortunately, evidence, pilot projects and best practices are now an integral part of government vocabulary. Minister Dubé also seems determined to put the scientific approach at the heart of his health overhaul. It’s encouraging.
It goes without saying that education, a priority of priorities, deserves a similar shift.
Admittedly, experts and stage managers are already discussing the ills that afflict the system and offer them various solutions, but, in the end, too few of them are really put to the test.
For lack of scientific hindsight, it is virtually impossible to quantify or qualify with precision the impacts of the string of educational reforms in Quebec, to separate the wheat from the chaff. However, the miracle solutions continue to rain, the last in the running being the abolition of the encrypted ballot and the addition of specialized classes.
Rather than rushing in with certainty, wouldn’t it be better advised to test the effectiveness of these hypotheses before implementing them on a large scale?
Take the example of the drastic drop in children’s VO2 max, which measures their cardiorespiratory capacity. Everyone agrees to intervene, but opinions differ on the method to be recommended. By experimenting in different classes with control groups, we could collect relevant data on the effectiveness of the various approaches proposed.
Similarly, randomized controlled studies could help us determine the best ways to improve flagging literacy, slow dropout, or tackle any other problem.
Only enlightened governance can stop the widespread application of false good ideas.