Why Scientists are also to blame

Our failure to separate fact from bias, objective data from subjective advice can have catastrophic consequences for Science.

It’s hard not to see the current polarisation between science and anti- or pseudo-science.
Coronavirus, climate change, biodynamic agriculture, Steiner education, vaccines, etc. have all become sources of overly simplistic debates, the only tangible result of which is often a strong polarisation between two separate factions. Each faction de-humanises the other, by labelling, generalising, simplifying, resorting to straw-man arguments.

I would like to draw our attention to the role of individual scientists and their responsibility in this.

The right tool for the job

As scientists, our role is to use the scientific method as an instrument, a tool. Certain applications are more suitable than others for a given tool. The scientific method is capable of solving very difficult issues with precision and speed. Our civilisation is full of examples of this: suspension bridges, computers, airplanes, organ transplant surgery — to mention only a few. As any other tool, however, it works best when it is used for its intended purpose, rather than indiscriminately on whatever task is presented to us. For instance, when engaging in a long-term romantic relationship, most of us don’t use science as a primary tool to inform decision-making: we don’t run repeatable experiments, review the literature, analyse the data and quantitatively model the possible outcomes. We could, but we don’t. We recognise that the scientific model might not be the best tool for the job, and we apply instead a mix of irrational intuition, self-observation, anecdotal evidence, cultural bias and other tools depending on who we are.

Don’t let a tool decide

When faced with a problem that seems suitable for the application of the scientific method, be it a pandemics or climatic disruption, a scientist sets out to collect and analyse data, develop models and make predictions. The results of the study can then be used in several ways. Most of the times they inform further research or, in some rare cases, policy making.
However, decision-making is not a prerogative of the scientific method. In my opinion, a prediction should not be followed by a recommended action. The scientist’s work should aim to provide several scenarios to cover all the possible actions — without biasing the reader, the commissioner of the work and the public towards any action.
Lately, however, sometimes under political pressure, sometimes out of a desire to be more useful and influential than they feel to be, scientists have taken the liberty to enrich their studies with recommended policies, preferred scenarios, threatening injunctions.

This does not do science any good. Because it creates a lot of confusion in the non-scientist, who starts to question the nature of science as a tool, and starts to see it as an ideology, a philosophy, a political view.

For or against: opinions and facts

The tendency of scientists to mix accurate results with personal opinions and data-driven predictions with biasing recommendations, makes the average citizen think that science has a direct (rather than indirect) influence on policy. As a result, if they don’t agree with the opinions that the majority of the scientific community seems to advocate, they become disillusioned and start to doubt the importance of science as tool to understand certain aspects of the world. Not very helpfully, a very opinionated and vocal part of the scientific community rushes to dismiss this reaction by using labels such as “denier”, “anti-scientific”, etc.
A similar issue arises when a group of very vocal and well renowned scientists sign a petition document or make a public statement in relation to a policy or a political decision. Be it climate change or LGBT rights, when a group of scientists takes a public stance the results are almost always questionable. For one, no matter how esteemed the members of this group might be, they do not represent the scientific community, because there is not an elected organ that can speak for all scientists. Secondly, they reinforce the impression that a given opinion is scientists’ or science’s view. This quickly makes its way into society and creates the image of a scientific community with strong political positions on the big issues of our time.

This is, in my view, catastrophic. Science should be the tool decision-makers and individual citizens use to understand certain issues. Not a cultural movement or a political éminence grise. Science does not take decisions, governments do, people do, scientists do. Not because of the science, but informed by the science.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a scientist and I am strongly opinionated. We are human beings and citizens, it is healthy for us to participate in the public debate. However, this does not justify the scientist who takes advantage of their own visibility and credibility to express a subjective view in front of an audience that is gathered to listen to an expert’s advice, not to a random person’s opinion. If I am asked for a professional analysis because of my scientific expertise, I should be really careful about keeping the conclusions of my study free from any subjective recommendations. If I were to go on TV, write on a newspaper, or were given any sort of public visibility because of my scientific achievements, I would keep my subjective thoughts to myself. Because doing otherwise would affect the role of science in the public eye.

A view that is very common within the scientific community is the belief that science can help us understand anything we interact with in our lives. According to this view, science is the more appropriate tool to use to understand the birth of the Universe, the arising of consciousness, the role of man in the cosmos, the way our society should be organised to maximise happiness, and so on. This is an ideology, a belief, as good as any other. I am not discussing its validity or my own stance with respect to it. I am pointing out that although this is a very widespread view within the scientific community, and is reflected in the behaviour of scientific-minded across the globe, it has nothing to do with science.

Protecting our tool

It is unfortunate that lots of influential scientists don’t spare any opportunity to put this attitude towards the world in front of their actual work. When interviewed, man and women of science often depict or hint at the supremacy of science over any other tool of understanding.
This has a big impact on the audience. It influences our culture and creates an image of science which transcends its actual nature as a tool or an instrument. It dresses it up with the drapes of a philosophy, a way of living and interpreting what we see and do. If our experience contradicts the suitability of using the scientific method in a given aspect of our lives, a friction is created. In the worst case scenario, thanks to this underlying absolutist attitude present in the scientific community, we start to question whether science is able to provide sensible questions at all. A polarisation takes place. And this does a disservice to science as a whole.

We have to reaffirm the importance of science as a tool, and this is also done by avoiding mixing scientific facts with subjective suggestions. It is also done by keeping our political, philosophical and personal views for conversations in which our scientific status does not create confusion between objective and subjective instances.