So let's start at the beginning - the nature of science. This is the first unit I do with my Biology 1 students each year because I really do see teaching them scientific literacy my primary goal - all the cool facts about how life works we talk about are just icing on the cake. Science comes from the Latin word scientia meaning "to know". It is a process of inquiry designed to help us understand how the natural world works. It is cumulative in nature, meaning that scientists are constantly revising their explanations of how and why things happen as they gain new knowledge. I always tell my students changing your mind in science isn't "flip-flopping" - it's good science. If you refuse to change your understanding of a phenomenon when presented with multiple lines of evidence showing you that your original idea was incorrect, you've failed.
It's also important to note that scientists who are being ethical don't speak in absolutes. They don't tell you they are 100% certain of anything because they are smart enough to realize it's impossible to know everything we don't know and it's impossible to avoid making mistakes. To be a scientist or at least think like one, you need to be open to critically evaluate all information you come across and be aware that we all have biases that color our interpretations. And most importantly, it's OK to say "I don't know" and be willing to ask for help to find an answer to a question you have.
 |
| Source: Berkeley's Understanding Science |
In the process of doing science, we ask questions about the world around us and we develop hypotheses - that is testable solutions or answers to our questions. In order for something to be a scientific hypothesis, it must be testable and those results must be replicable by others, in order to verify whether we should support or reject the hypothesis. Science is a collaborative effort and communication between researchers is critical to developing solid understanding. Typically, scientists work in relatively small group collaborations - a lab group - focused on a small subset of scientific questions or problems. They become a sort of expert unit - all discussing and sharing knowledge of the topic they are examining. The reality is that research is expensive and that solving big questions requires different perspectives and talents. So labs that are interested in the same topics often work together to share resources and sometimes they compete.
When a sufficient amount of work has been completed to make a cogent argument about what the data means, scientists will write up their findings and submit them to scientific journals or professional meetings. Usually, to have work published means that research has been subjected to peer review - meaning other folks with the training to allow them to evaluate the claims being made by the authors have already critiqued the paper before it was published. And the peer review process doesn't stop once a paper is published - other scientists will try to replicate and verify the results based on the reagents and methodologies presented in the paper. If other labs cannot independently verify the claims, the paper is retracted. So is this process of vetting perfect? Absolutely not. Scientists are human after all - they make mistakes. But generally, bullshit is eventually detected and routed out.
 |
| Source: Berkeley's Understanding Science |
Because of the seriousness of the COVID19 pandemic, non-scientists are getting to watch the process of science in real-time in a way they haven't before. Results are being released without traditional peer review (see my previous blog post for more details). Scientists who aren't accustomed to presenting data to the general public are finding themselves thrust onto the media. I'm sure this can make it look like scientists don't know what they are doing. But the truth is, you're just witnessing the sausage being made, rather than just enjoying how it tastes in the end.
Another rather disturbing trend that has been going on for a while is the disregard of expertise. That's not to say that authority reigns supreme in science - paradigm shifts can be generated by up and comers and established scientists can be shown to be wrong. But everyone seems to think that their 20 minutes of Google "research" is equivalent to entire professional lives dedicated to the careful study of something. Isaac Asimov, the great biochemist and author, was quoted in 1980 as saying:
The availability of information on the internet, the ease with which people can make a source look reputable, the staggering amounts of money people can make by sharing their modern snake oil... It's a toxic mix.
The latest malarkey I've seen shared by multiple friends, acquaintances and community members is a video claiming Anthony Fauci and others in infectious disease masterminded this pandemic. No, I'm not sharing the video nor am I wasting my time to individually break down each false claim it purports. Not because I'm a corporate shill (I have no connection to any pharmaceutical company) or because I'm a sheeple (pretty sure my PhD level education has actually taught me to be more critical than the average bear). But because I refuse to be a part of the misinformation machine that contributes to people's deaths. I will, however, call out the disgraced scientist who features prominently in it. Because people like Judy Mikovits are arguably the worst - people who earn degrees in science and medicine and then use that degree to grift others. Mikovits is not some hero or influential researcher; she was a mid-level scientist whose own decisions tanked her career (after her work on chronic fatigue was disproved she was fired from a private lab in 2011 and arrested for stealing intellectual property) and now makes a living off of writing books and pushing conspiracy theories. She's a shameless self-promoter. F*ck Judy Mikovits and others of her ilk.
So what's an average Joe or Jane to do? First, if it sounds too good to be true, it's probably not true. Recognize that the "I'm just fighting the establishment on your behalf" narrative is just that - a narrative to elevate someone's importance and gain your trust. Avoid sensational headlines - they are designed to capture attention and generate revenue. If you must read or watch something that seems like it is dancing into pseudoscience or conspiracy territory, do so with a healthy level of skepticism and critical thinking. I teach my students that if they make a claim, they must support their claim with verifiable evidence and be able to clearly explain their reasoning - in other words can you show the link between that particular evidence supporting your claims? Astronomer Carl Sagan is oft-quoted about the need for evidence:
 |
| Click here to hear Sagan speak on this in 1995. |
Perhaps the most important thing you can do is to NOT SHARE INFORMATION THAT HASN'T BEEN FACT CHECKED. You cannot control the deluge of preliminary or shaky science, alternative facts, and fake news. But you CAN and should prevent the spread of misinformation. Remember the old Smoky the Bear campaign - only you can prevent forest fires? Well, folks, only you can prevent misinformation dumpster fires. You can quote me on that.
For more information on pseudoscience, battling bunk and why people believe weird stuff: here, here, here, and here. You should also probably check out the two infographics below:
 |
| Source: Compound Interest |
 |
| Source: The Skeptical Cardiologist |
No comments:
Post a Comment