For the past two years, we have been reading various comments in the media or social networks on what citizens should or should not think when trying to get an idea of the current health situation.
Posted yesterday at 11:00 a.m.
Moreover, we sometimes criticize the way some people read science. Others try to define what scientific advice is or is not based solely on what academic or hospital figures think.
If, one day, you participate in the “review clubs” offered as part of scientific training (master’s, doctorate and postdoctorate), you will see that no article emerges alive from such an ordeal. Indeed, it is impossible for a scientist to avoid biases, shortcuts, statistical analyzes as necessary as they are limiting, reductionist methodologies to measure an epiphenomenon, etc. My articles are destroyed as much as those of my colleagues. It is a powerful thought process for developing a sense of intellectual ethics.
A sad and increasingly common tragedy is that many “influencers” only read the conclusions of articles.
Most of the time, they have a solid undergraduate education, but they don’t always have the knowledge to qualify their opinion. Or they generalize the microcosm on which they base their certainties. Jean Fourastié called this common ignorance.
Of course, these influencers rely on theories established by various researchers. However, these theories are only valid for a breath, because none survive the test of time if, in the slightest, they explain the phenomena of life. Admittedly, there are trends that persist, but subsequent studies gradually qualify or undo all the initial beliefs, even presented as scientific.
Links with industry
Another common drama is that we don’t saw off the branch we’re sitting on. Many university laboratories and departments are bound hand and foot by contracts with industry. A grant is shared 60% for the researcher and 40% for the department and the university or hospital. This automatically puts pressure on what will or will not be published. During my doctorate and my post-doctorate, I met many researchers forced to keep quiet. Even Health Canada is sometimes quite embarrassed by Industry Canada, because lobbying is very powerful in favoring economy at the expense of precaution.
As a scientist, I learned two things: humility and circumspection. All in all, you have to pay attention to everything that you don’t know and that you don’t master. This is called scholarly ignorance.
Admittedly, we can give an opinion, but that engages only ourselves. We can take inspiration from colleagues, but the references risk being circular when we only quote people from the same seraglio. You have to agree to qualify your thinking, especially if it is expressed in the media. Certainties are not science.
Moreover, it must be admitted that any opinion is influenced by our field of research, our theoretical perspective, our academic profile and the methods used, our dogmas based on the illusion of consensus, our emotions, our beliefs, our ideals, etc. It is dangerous (for society at large) not to consider the intentions and beliefs that drive each researcher. We are human beings and we can make mistakes… or change our minds! Anyone who believes they are safe from this is no longer a scientist, but is part of a religious approach, such as transhumanism.
Health or political crisis?
Currently, we are much more in a political crisis than a health crisis. We manage the number of beds, not a virus. Until proven otherwise, I remain with the belief in the honesty of people like Horacio Arruda and members of the crisis unit set up by François Legault. They have tough choices to make. However, to deny that some medical influencers are trying to take advantage of the situation to highlight their interests (even for humanitarian purposes, such as funding a hospital foundation, their research chair or their department) is a risk that it is better not to take.
Finally, I would say that, in universities and various think tanks as discreet as they are scientific, the discussions are similar to those we had publicly in March and April 2020: that is to say, there are plenty of divergent opinions and we try to understand, to model, to question, to redefine our explanatory models, etc. That’s the science. The truth. It is based on confrontations of ideas on the basis of numerous scientific studies and they make knowledge evolve in the broad sense.
In May and June 2020, there were clear demands to provide an illusion of consensus. Guidelines then forced many people – both scientists and those highlighted in the media – to self-censor. You would have to be crazy to take the risk of being beaten with a stick (“covidiot”, “conspirator”, etc.).
In conclusion, there is currently so much that we do not know about the virus and its variants, their effects or those of the drugs offered to the population to avoid complications. Let us remain humble, respectful and circumspect…