Education logo

Trust the Science

Brief thoughts on an 'anti-science' notion

By E.B. MahoneyPublished 2 years ago Updated 2 years ago 10 min read
Like
Trust the Science
Photo by Julia Koblitz on Unsplash

Disclaimer: Without prejudice. The author does not act as an authority on any of the content covered in this article. It is merely evidence based opinion (and readers are advised to question the validity, accuracy, and reliability of this evidence), and may not take into account all available evidence, while efforts have been taken to be appropriately informed. Information and that available via supplied links may also be subject to change, and should be accurate as of 14-Jan-22. Paragraph 5 updated: 23-Jan-22.

'Trust the science.' It's a phrase that has often been used, either to reassure or dismiss those with questions and concerns surrounding these new times we are navigating, and the decisions made by our governments regarding public health. Perhaps it is in our best interest to just trust those higher up. Trust they have our best interests at heart. Perhaps most of us are not qualified to contradict it. But does that mean we shouldn't? As a person who has studied tertiary level science for just over four years, I am not an expert, I am certainly not a specialist in anything.

However, one thing I have consistently learned through studying the sciences in secondary school and university is that you don't just 'trust the science'. Science is there to be questioned. It is almost laughable to assume there is only one potential answer, or truth. The words, 'fact' and 'science', don't tend to go very well hand in hand. I am not saying that we should not trust the scientific methods that go into creating sound evidence based knowledge or practices. I am not saying you should fear 'the science'. I am not saying that it is incorrect. But when we are no longer allowed to question it without being ridiculed, or accused of being a 'conspiracy theorist', or an 'antivaxxer,' or 'dangerous,' I would hope that we would all be concerned. If 'the science' used as evidence to justify the decisions and 'restrictions' placed upon us by those who govern us is sound, and was best practice at the time, we should all be welcome to question it. Good scientific conclusions hold up under scrutiny.

What about peer reviewed articles? Surely we can trust what these say. Even in science, proper procedures are not always observed. We are only human, and incompetence also exists. The peer review process takes place to ensure that papers that are published do not have any evident issues, or baseless claims. It is undertaken to ensure integrity of what gets published. Even the peer review process is not ideal though. It is not perfect. Peer reviewers are not expected to view primary data, or analyse it, and may not even be qualified to do so. They are not expected to verify an author's details or confirm their involvement with the study, or identify potential conflicts of interest that may not have been declared. It is not realistic to expect this of peer reviewers, and it is not considered an effective use of their time and expertise. Students in science, including health professionals, are typically trained to accept peer reviewed information as a gold standard evaluated resource, but isn't it important to treat every source of information with a healthy dose of scepticism? Conversely, papers that are yet to be peer reviewed, while they should be heavily scrutinised, should not be dismissed entirely just because they are not yet peer reviewed. At the same time, current best knowledge is of course, constantly changing. Even previous peer reviewed articles may eventually be outdated or updated - in part or wholly, given appropriate evidence. The evolution of current best scientific knowledge is mainly due to the questions asked about 'the science', that leads to further inquiry. Thus, just 'trusting the science,' is not conducive to good scientific practice.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093306/

When certain pharmaceuticals companies distribute a product, especially a product that is on an emergency licence, or provisional approval, transparency is essential. This might be especially plausible if the company wishes for good uptake. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were trying to release parts of trial data and supporting documents used to approve Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine in a process taking up to 75 years (releasing 500 pages per month). This has been rejected by a federal judge in the US, and the FDA is expected to release this information in a more timely manner. When there is hesitancy to get this particular vaccine, transparency is of utmost importance in order to allay some concerns of product safety, especially if it is a novel product with no long term safety data. Surely it is in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies, in order to assure of product efficacy and safety, to be honest, and facilitate the means for scientists (including health professionals) to be fully informed, and so enable individuals to give informed consent when deciding whether or not to take a novel vaccine. Instead, it seems there have been efforts to delay the release of important information that went into the FDA's decision making process. Perhaps we should be asking why?

https://www.fdanews.com/articles/206113-federal-judge-tells-fda-it-must-make-public-55000-pages-a-month-of-pfizer-vaccine-data

Considering the situation, and the available information on the relative threat COVID-19 poses to most individuals, vaccine mandates being implemented around the world seem a bizarre step. Possible options for early treatment have been denied patients - not by doctors - but by their governing bodies, in favour of waiting for a vaccine to be released to the public, and limited use of treatment options (often later in disease progression). Even if these treatments don't work, even if the evidence suggesting their effectiveness is circumstantial, doctors have been trained how to approach using products off label. These products in question are generally familiar enough for there to be sound long term safety data, and yet they have been ridiculed or portrayed as dangerous, or ineffective, by governing bodies like the US's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), FDA, and Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). In the case of the TGA, it appears to be for arbitrary reasons including concerns that people would get dosage amounts incorrect because of posts on social media. I would hope my GP wouldn't get their medical information from social media. With that particular reason in mind, it seems absurd that the TGA would remove the only legitimate and safe way for people to access such a product. Wouldn't people be more likely to be desperate enough to unsafely self-medicate when they know a doctor cannot help them even if it might be appropriate? These proposed early treatments have been ridiculed by the media, and become politically divisive. My understanding is the sciences were not supposed to be such a political minefield. Scientists, especially medical professionals, should be able to question current scientific knowledge, give evidence based advice, and make their own informed decisions regarding their own health, without fear of ridicule, being accused of being selfish, or a danger to society. Scientific evidence is not meant to promote fear, and the means for authorities to gain ever more control over our lives and health. If the government really cared about public health, wouldn't they do their due diligence to exhaust all possible avenues when dealing with this virus? Why not place more emphasis on the investigation into economic early treatment protocols, as well as vaccination? By dismissing possible early treatment options, we disadvantage everyone, especially the most vulnerable in our society. No treatment or preventative option is perfect, but they all must be considered and continually reassessed. Unfortunately, it seems certain potential options are being written off for arbitrary reasons (at least in some aspects and cases), despite having good long-term safety profiles, being used extensively overseas, and being suggested as options by many specialists in their fields. It is important to note that while the main reasoning for restricting use of these potential early treatment options would not be done without cause (for example, see the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce - link below), I believe that bodies like the TGA need to be careful with some of the reasoning they present in publications like the one below.

TGA reasoning for the restriction of use of just one drug listed as a potential early-treatment (link above). This author's article is NOT an endorsement for the use of this drug or any other non-approved proposed early treatment options for COVID-19 and is not intended to be a scientific or health resource. See the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce, the World Health Organisation, and the US Food and Drug Administration sites if you wish to explore the TGA's reasoning behind the above decision.
National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce presents many proposed potential early treatments for COVID-19, and includes comprehensive reasoning behind recommendations for each, including the evidence that contributed to these recommendations - and contributed to decisions made by governing bodies in their assessment process at the time of assessment, and should be continually reassessed.

Above: just one example of a paper (note; it appears to be only recently peer reviewed, and may be subject to corrections or retraction at a later date, and the calibre of journal processes of review should also be considered) in support of an alternative viewpoint in the scientific community. It is one that we rarely see portrayed in main stream media, or spoken about by politicians. It is ever important to consider all perspectives and that information behind policy decisions is constantly reviewed. . I am not saying this does not happen, but merely that this is an important aspect of due process (and I am aware this takes time). It will be interesting to see how publications like this hold up over time and reassessment too.

As I see potentially valid scientific opinion being censored on platforms like Facebook, and Youtube, and often baselessly ridiculed by those in main stream media, I worry for my future as a scientist. If it can happen to specialists with decades worth of education, peer reviewed publications, and experience, it can certainly happen to me, or any one of my peers.

Another issue in which we are apparently expected to 'trust the science,' is the introduction of COVID-19 vaccine mandates. In the name of science, mandates have been implemented across Australia to ensure uptake. Of course it is an important initiative, and I am not denying the use of these, and people should have access to them. My university (along with many others) has recently announced its intentions to introduce vaccine mandates, albeit much later than in other Australian states. Anyone who is not 'fully vaccinated', will not be able to access university campuses in 2022. Of course, access to campus is hugely important for acquiring the education we seek by enrolling at the university in the first place. While online study will be an option for some, how does the university expect to make up for valuable time lost engaging in practical components, and proper networking with peers and academics? Clearly the universities do not think their students and staff are capable of making an informed decision, which is sad considering a university is supposed to be a capable educational institution.

Why should a university bother teaching its students to make their own decisions, or utilise critical thinking, if the institution does not respect it? Why does a university bother teaching the sciences if it isn't going to stand by its basic principles? It appears that universities are taking part in removing informed consent out of the equation regarding health choices, and compromising doctor-patient relationships in Australia. It would be hard for a student to not be aware of the importance of informed consent if they study sciences dealing with medicine, or research.

As I face the possibility that I may not be able to commence my fourth year of a science degree (depending on whether I end up making a particular personal medical decision), I struggle to feel excited about my future in science. However, I will continue to aspire to represent my chosen field to a high level, and continually learn and reassess my scientific opinion, and admit mistakes when they are made. I think it is crucial to our future that 'the science' is always questioned.

Unfortunately, governments and main stream media who push their main narrative and agenda onto the citizens of the world are portraying a message of worrying trend. Your opinion only matters if you agree. It doesn't matter how educated you are, what evidence you have available, or how many years of experience and expertise you have. Anyone can be silenced, and discredited, even if what they had to say might be valid or could save lives. And that, I think, is by far the most foreboding thing about this pandemic.

fact or fiction
Like

About the Creator

E.B. Mahoney

Aspiring author, artist, and sleep deprived student. Based in Australia, E.B. Mahoney enjoys climbing trees, playing a real-world version of a fictional sport, and writing in the scant spare time she has left.

Instagram

Pax tecum Tom Bradbury

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.